The Greatest Works of S. S. Van Dine (Illustrated Edition). S.S. Van DineЧитать онлайн книгу.

      CHAPTER XXV

       VANCE EXPLAINS HIS METHODS

       Table of Contents

      (Thursday, June 20; 9 p.m.)

      That same evening, after a Turkish bath and dinner, Markham, grim and weary, and Vance, bland and debonair, and myself were sitting together in the alcove of the Stuyvesant Club’s lounge-room.

      We had smoked in silence for half an hour or more, when Vance, as if giving articulation to his thoughts, remarked:

      “And it’s stubborn, unimag’native chaps like Heath who constitute the human barrage between the criminal and society! . . . Sad, sad.”

      “We have no Napoleons to-day,” Markham observed. “And if we had, they’d probably not be detectives.”

      “But even should they have yearnings toward that profession,” said Vance, “they would be rejected on their physical measurements. As I understand it, your policemen are chosen by their height and weight; they must meet certain requirements as to heft—as though the only crimes they had to cope with were riots and gang feuds. Bulk,—the great American ideal, whether in art, architecture, table d’hôte meals, or detectives. An entrancin’ notion.”

      “At any rate, Heath has a generous nature,” said Markham palliatingly. “He has completely forgiven you for everything.”

      Vance smiled.

      “The amount of credit and emulsification he received in the afternoon papers would have mellowed anyone. He should even forgive the Major for hitting him.—A clever blow, that; based on rotary leverage. Heath’s constitution must be tough, or he wouldn’t have recovered so quickly. . . . And poor Phelps! He’ll have a horror of knees the rest of his life.”

      “You certainly guessed the Major’s reaction,” said Markham. “I’m almost ready to grant there’s something in your psychological flummery, after all. Your æsthetic deductions seemed to put you on the right track.”

      After a pause he turned and looked inquisitively at Vance.

      “Tell me exactly why, at the outset, you were convinced of the Major’s guilt?”

      Vance settled back in his chair.

      “Consider, for a moment, the characteristics—the outstanding features—of the crime. Just before the shot was fired Benson and the murderer undoubtedly had been talking or arguing—the one seated, the other standing. Then Benson had pretended to read: he had said all he had to say. His reading was his gesture of finality; for one doesn’t read when conversing with another unless for a purpose. The murderer, seeing the hopelessness of the situation, and having come prepared to meet it heroically, took out a gun, aimed it at Benson’s temple, and pulled the trigger. After that, he turned out the lights and went away. . . . Such are the facts, indicated and actual.”

      He took several puffs on his cigarette.

      “Now, let’s analyze ’em. . . . As I pointed out to you, the murderer didn’t fire at the body, where, though the chances of hitting would have been much greater, the chances of death would have been less. He chose the more diff’cult and hazardous—and, at the same time, the more certain and efficient—course. His technique, so to speak, was bold, direct, and fearless. Only a man with iron nerves and a highly developed gambler’s instinct would have done it in just this forthright and audacious fashion. Therefore, all nervous, hot-headed, impulsive, or timid persons were automatically elim’nated as suspects. The neat, business-like aspect of the crime, together with the absence of any material clues that, could possibly have incrim’nated the culprit, indicated unmistakably that it had been premeditated and planned with coolness and precision, by a person of tremendous self-assurance, and one used to taking risks. There was nothing subtle or in the least imag’native about the crime. Every feature of it pointed to an aggressive, blunt mind—a mind at once static, determined and intrepid, and accustomed to dealing with facts and situations in a direct, concrete and unequivocal manner. . . . I say, Markham, surely you’re a good enough judge of human nature to read the indications, what?”

      “I think I get the drift of your reasoning,” the other admitted a little doubtfully.

      “Very well, then,” Vance continued. “Having determined the exact psychological nature of the deed, it only remained to find some int’rested person whose mind and temp’rament were such that, if he undertook a task of this kind in the given circumst’nces, he would inev’tably do it in precisely the manner in which it was done. As it happened, I had known the Major for a long time; and so it was obvious to me, the moment I had looked over the situation that first morning, that he had done it. The crime, in every respect and feature, was a perfect psychological expression of his character and mentality. But even had I not known him personally, I would have been able—since I possessed so clear and accurate a knowledge of the murderer’s personality—to pick him out from any number of suspects.”

      “But suppose another person of the Major’s type had done it?” asked Markham.

      “We all differ in our natures—however similar two persons may appear at times,” Vance explained. “And while, in the present case, it is barely conceivable that another man of the Major’s type and temp’rament might have done it, the law of probability must be taken into account. Even supposing there were two men almost identical in personality and instincts in New York, what would be the chance of their both having had a reason to kill Benson? However, despite the remoteness of the possibility, when Pfyfe came into the case, and I learned he was a gambler and a hunter, I took occasion to look into his qualifications. Not knowing him personally, I appealed to Colonel Ostrander for my information; and what he told me put Pfyfe at once hors de propos.”

      “But he had nerve: he was a rash plunger; and he certainly had enough at stake,” objected Markham.

      “Ah! But between a rash plunger and a bold, level-headed gambler like the Major, there is a great difference—a psychological abyss. In fact, their animating impulses are opposites. The plunger is actuated by fear and hope and desire; the cool-headed gambler is actuated by expediency and belief and judgment. The one is emotional, the other mental. The Major, unlike Pfyfe, is a born gambler, and inf’nitely self-confident. This kind of self-confidence, however, is not the same as recklessness, though superficially the two bear a close resemblance. It is based on an instinctive belief in one’s own infallibility and safety. It’s the reverse of what the Freudians call the inferiority complex,—a form of egomania, a variety of folie de grandeur. The Major possessed it, but it was absent from Pfyfe’s composition; and as the crime indicated its possession by the perpetrator, I knew Pfyfe was innocent.”

      “I begin to grasp the thing in a nebulous sort of way,” said Markham after a pause.

      “But there were other indications, psychological and otherwise,” went on Vance, “—the undress attire of the body, the toupee and teeth upstairs, the inferred familiarity of the murderer with the domestic arrangements, the fact that he had been admitted by Benson himself, and his knowledge that Benson would be at home alone at that time—all pointing to the Major as the guilty person. Another thing: the height of the murderer corresponded to the Major’s height. This indication, though, was of minor importance; for had my measurements not tallied with the Major, I would have known that the bullet had been deflected, despite the opinions of all the Captain Hagedorns in the universe.”

      “Why were you so positive a woman couldn’t have