But though either of them could presumably have introduced the poison into the glass, neither of them had had any opportunity of directing that particular glass into Mr. Babbington’s hand.
Temple might have done so by adroit handing of the tray so as to offer him the one remaining glass - (not easy, but it might have been done).
Sir Charles could have done so by deliberately picking up the particular glass and handing it to him.
But neither of these things had occurred.
It looked as though chance and chance alone directed that particular glass to Stephen Babbington.
“Sir Charles Cartwright and Temple had the handling of the cocktails. Were either of those two at Melfort Abbey? They were not.
Who had the best chance of tampering with Sir Bartholomew’s port glass?
The absconding butler, Ellis, and his helper, the parlourmaid.
But here, however, the possibility that one of the guests had done so could not be laid aside.
It was risky, but it was possible, for any of the house party to have slipped into the dining room and put the nicotine into the port glass.
“When I joined you at Crow’s Nest you already had a list drawn up of the people who had been at Crow's Nest and at Melfort Abbey.
I may say now that the four names which headed the list - Captain and Mrs. Dacres, Miss Sutcliffe and Miss Wills - I discarded immediately.
“It was impossible that any of those four people should have known beforehand that they were going to meet Stephen Babbington at dinner.
The employment of nicotine as a poison showed a carefully thought-out plan, not one that could be put into operation on the spur of the moment.
There were three other names on that list - Lady Mary Lytton Gore, Miss Lytton Gore and Mr. Oliver Manders.
Although not probable, those three were possible.
They were local people, they might conceivably have motives for the removal of Stephen Babbington, and have chosen the evening of the dinner-party for putting their plans into operation.
“On the other hand, I could find no evidence whatsoever that any of them had actually done such a thing.
“Mr. Satterthwaite, I think, reasoned on much the same lines as I had done, and he fixed his suspicion on Oliver Manders.
I may say that young Manders was by far the most possible suspect.
He displayed all the signs of high nervous tension on that evening at Crow’s Nest - he had a somewhat distorted view of life owing to his private troubles - he had a strong inferiority complex, which is a frequent cause of crime, he was at an unbalanced age, he had actually had a quarrel, or shall we say had displayed animosity against Mr. Babbington. Then there were the curious circumstances of his arrival at Melfort Abbey.
And later we had his somewhat incredible story of the letter from Sir Bartholomew Strange and the evidence of Miss Wills as to his having a newspaper cutting on the subject of nicotine poisoning in his possession.
“Oliver Manders, then, was clearly the person who should be placed at the head of the list of those seven suspects.
“But then, my friends, I was visited by a curious sensation.
It seemed clear and logical enough that the person who had committed the crimes must have been a person who had been present on both occasions; in other words a person on that list of seven - but I had the feeling that that obviousness was an arranged obviousness.
It was what any sane and logical person would be expected to think.
I felt that I was, in fact, looking not at reality but at an artfully painted bit of scenery.
A really clever criminal would have realised that anyone whose name was on that list would necessarily be suspect, and therefore he or she would arrange for it not to be there.
“In other words, the murderer of Stephen Babbington and Sir Bartholomew Strange was present on both occasions - but was not apparently so.
“Who had been present on the first occasion and not on the second?
Sir Charles Cartwright, Mr. Satterthwaite, Miss Milray and Mrs. Babbington.
“Could any of those four have been present on the second occasion in some capacity other than their own?
Sir Charles and Mr. Satterthwaite had been in the South of France, Miss Milray had been in London, Mrs. Babbington had been in Loomouth.
Of the four, then, Miss Milray and Mrs. Babbington seemed indicated.
But could Miss Milray have been present at Melfort Abbey unrecognised by any of the company?
Miss Milray has very striking features not easily disguised and not easily forgotten. I decided that it was impossible that Miss Milray could have been at Melfort Abbey unrecognised.
The same applied to Mrs. Babbington.
“For the matter of that could Mr. Satterthwaite or Sir Charles Cartwright have been at Melfort Abbey and not been recognised?
Mr. Satterthwaite just possibly; but when we come to Sir Charles Cartwright we come to a very different matter.
Sir Charles is an actor accustomed to playing a part.
But what part could he have played?
“And then I came to the consideration of the butler Ellis.
“A very mysterious person, Ellis. A person who appears from nowhere a fortnight before the crime and vanishes afterwards with complete success.
Why was Ellis so successful?
Because Ellis did not really exist.
Ellis, again, was a thing of pasteboard and paint and stagecraft - Ellis was not real.
“But was it possible?
After all, the servants at Melfort Abbey knew Sir Charles Cartwright, and Sir Bartholomew Strange was an intimate friend of his. The servants I got over easily enough.
The impersonation of the butler risked nothing - if the servants recognised him - why, no harm would be done - the whole thing could be passed off as a joke.
If, on the other hand, a fortnight passed without any suspicion being aroused, well, the thing was safe as houses.