"The facts are these:

"D. H. J. H. Emmanuel Testu, Count de Balincourt, born on August 4th, 1873, was married at Versailles in December 1901.... A divorce was p.r.o.nounced against him in January 1907. It is said that while he was married, Count de Balincourt made long stays at his wife's grandmother's, Mme. de Brossard, at Versailles. He knew that she had large sums of money in her safe. Needy, and having recourse to expedients, de Balincourt planned the burglary mentioned above.

"He told his friend P. L. F. Delpit--who styled himself a man 'of independent means'--about the scheme. At that time, de Balincourt and Delpit resided together at Neuilly. It would appear that Delpit, who mixes with criminal people, took upon himself the task of recruiting the individuals capable of successfully carrying out that 'operation.'

"Whilst he was being carefully shadowed by M. Sebille's inspectors, Delpit was followed to the haunts of professional thieves... (two of these haunts are here quoted). It was thus ascertained that Delpit had conferred with criminal individuals, the ident.i.ty of a few of whom was established:

"(1) A man nicknamed Baptistin, aged 30... who has the reputation of being a dangerous criminal.... (2) Langon, Marius, nicknamed 'the Gypsy.'... He is mentioned as possessing a special pneumatic tool for boring metal.... Five sentences have been pa.s.sed on him, including one of five years' imprisonment.... (3) Goirand, aged 30... twice condemned.... (4) Fontaine, Gustave, aged 30.... (5) _Monstet de Fonpeyrine, born in 1877, at Santiago de Cuba_, conjurer, arrested in November last for robberies in Paris hotels.

"Whilst these individuals were being shadowed by the _Surete Generale_, it was found that Fontaine drove to Versailles in a motor-car, and he was seen at night trying skeleton keys in the lock of the door of Mme.

de Brossard's mansion.

"It is not known whether some indiscretions were committed; at any rate, these individuals ceased to meet in their haunts, and abandoned their plans.

"Finally, during the shadowing of Count de Balincourt, _one of the inspectors saw him go to the Impa.s.se Ronsin No. 6, and from there, by the Underground to the station of 'Les Couronnes,' where he (de Balincourt) had an appointment with the above-mentioned individuals_....

"...At any rate, the fact seems sufficiently established that the initial steps of the burglary that had been planned were carried out, since skeleton keys were tried by Fontaine, on the door of Mme. Brossard (grandmother of de B.'s wife).

"As regards de Balincourt and Delpit, both these individuals are mentioned in the general report concerning the Steinheil affair. _There are 'dossiers' about both of them in the archive of the Surete in reference to burglaries; and further, there are photographs of both of them at the 'Service of Judicial Identification._'

"(Signed) INSPECTOR DECHET."

(_Dossier_ Cote 1069)

And this Count de Balincourt I received, alas, several times at my house and once at Bellevue, in circ.u.mstances which I have described!

No power on earth could induce me even to suggest that M. de Balincourt and his friend knew anything about the Impa.s.se Ronsin murder, or were in any way connected with it. I foolishly accused Couillard and Wolff, and have bitterly regretted it ever since, but I have often thought what a fortunate thing it was for me that I was not acquainted with those details of M. de Balincourt's life, after the crime and _before_ my arrest. For, in the morbid state of agitation in which I was, and in my pardonable eagerness to discover the murderers, I should no doubt have made my own case worse by accusing, not only my valet and the son of my cook, but also M. de Balincourt, especially as he had gained access to my house in a rather strange manner, had deceived me about his address, had done his utmost to gain M. Steinheil's confidence, _and knew about the Faure doc.u.ments_.

As it was, I had strong suspicions against him, and they became even stronger, and surely, after what I read in M. de Balincourt's dossier, and have partly quoted, the reader will perhaps grant that, although I had no "real" or "absolute" cause to suspect the man, I had some reason to... let us say, distrust him.

I must add, however, that in another of Inspector Dechet's reports I read that: "It has been impossible to ascertain what persons M. de Balincourt went about with in May 1908.... The only friend he was known to have at the time was Delpit, who lived with him. It is useful to mention that M. de Balincourt has always a.s.serted that he had made the acquaintance of Mme. Steinheil towards February 15th (1908).... It appears doubtful therefore that at the time when this individual (M. de B.) was being shadowed by the _Surete Generale_ in December 1907, he could have been seen going to No. 6 Impa.s.se Ronsin.

"The Inspector:

"(Signed) DECHET."

(_Dossier_ Cote 1089)

M. de Balincourt was several times interrogated, and among other things, he stated: "On Sat.u.r.day, May 30, 1908, I returned at about 8 P.M. to the pavilion where I reside with my friend Delpit (at Courbevoie, a suburb of Paris).... We dined at 11.30; we parted and went each of us to his rooms. The next day, May 31st, I rose late and joined my father at the Neuilly Church, as I did every Sunday. At about one o'clock I was back home and lunched with my family and Delpit. I spent the afternoon in my garden, and only went out at seven o'clock to buy the journal _La Presse_, with Delpit, at the station. After we had deplored our losses, for we had put some money on a horse which had not won, my attention was drawn to a heading announcing the murder of the members of the Steinheil family. As I read the article I was dumfounded and absolutely distracted. We were surprised, Delpit and I, that Mme. Steinheil had been spared by the murderers, but I was the first to recognise that circ.u.mstances must have favoured her....

"(Signed) HAMARD.

COMTE DE BALINCOURT."

(_Dossier_ Cote 1087)

I must also add that it is stated in the _Dossier_ Cote 1089, that it was not while the gang of thieves previously referred to were being shadowed that one of them "was seen going to Versailles to try the skeleton-keys" but that "the fact was revealed by an _indicateur_ whose name the _Surete Generale_ could not divulge."

I made many other strange discoveries in that most extraordinary of dossiers. Indeed, it not only contains the absolute proofs of my innocence, throws much light on Parisian life, and gives an insight into the psychology of at least two or three "spheres" of Society, but it also holds a serious condemnation of a number of judicial methods, so palpably unjust that it seems incredible that they should be allowed to exist in a land, which by universal consent ranks foremost, not only in the realms of Art and Science, but also in the domain of Intellectuality, n.o.ble aspirations, and idealism.

The dossier fills 15,000 pages; it is therefore impossible to quote it in full.... I have, however, submitted to the reader its most essential parts; but before concluding this rapid review of the surprises that dossier held in store for me, I should like to mention one or two more episodes:

I had a lady friend, who was then about fifty, and whom I had known intimately for nearly fifteen years. This lady knew my life and my affairs as thoroughly as I knew hers. She came constantly to the Impa.s.se Ronsin with her husband, a man of about seventy, and her cousin, a barrister of repute, and also to _Vert-Logis_, at Bellevue, with that cousin. We corresponded regularly, in the most affectionate of terms.

That she should have virulently criticised my conduct, that she should have made such acid statements as these: "Mme. Steinheil was most familiar and very quickly familiar with everybody, with men as well as with women; she called gentlemen 'my friend, my great friend,' and ladies 'my dear, my darling!'... She gave me the impression of being jealous of her lady-friends' wealth. She lied constantly about anything and everything.... I saw her less and less.... I had heard ugly rumours about her conduct...." (_Dossier_, Cote 3058)--all this I can realise and forgive: it is so human, so typical of a certain cla.s.s of Society and a certain type of woman.... Besides, I was in prison at the time; I could not answer or contradict statements. My "friend" was quite safe.

But it appears that at the same time--early in 1909--this lady spoke about certain anonymous letters and about _poisoned chocolates_, which she thought I had sent her!

I can imagine the sensation in her drawing-room, and the success of her "at homes." The Steinheil affair was the one topic of conversation everywhere, and here was a hostess who had known that wicked woman, the "Tragic Widow," the "Red Widow," for many, many years! And she had something new to say, something amazingly sensational: she had once received a box of poisoned chocolates from the woman who was accused of having murdered her husband and her mother!...

I can see the ladies forgetting their tea and their _pet.i.t-fours_, pressing eagerly round my "friend" and saying, in hushed tones: "Not really!... You don't mean to say that.... But what a monster that creature must have been.... And to think she was here, in this very room.... My poor dear.... No, no, we shall not mention this to any one. You can rely on us. But what a dreadful secret!"...

The next day, of course, all the newspapers devoted columns to it.

The mystery ceased to be a mystery: Mme. Steinheil had poisoned the victims and afterwards strangled them, when they were quite defenceless!

It was quite clear! The riddle was solved, at last!

Once again, Public Opinion was aroused against me. And from these people who read the newspapers, whose minds were daily being incensed against me--to such an extent, I have heard since, that it was not safe for any one to take my part, even in a salon!--from that enraged Public, twelve men were to be chosen, a few months later, to decide my fate!

I need hardly say that there was not one atom of truth in that atrocious story. In her evidence given _before M. Andre_, on January 12th, 1909, my "friend" stated: "Three or four years ago, I received two or three anonymous letters, teasing rather than nasty. I _supposed_ they came from Mme. Steinheil, but I never spoke to her about them. On the occasion of the New Year, at that same period, a box of chocolates, badly packed, was left with my _concierge_ for me. Without tasting them or giving any to any one, not even my dog, I sent those chocolates to the Munic.i.p.al Laboratory to be a.n.a.lysed. I was told that the chocolates were absolutely harmless. I had taken the whole thing as a joke, which I attributed to the author of the anonymous letters, that is, to Mme.

Steinheil. Since then I have found that those chocolates had been sent me by Doctor C."

(_Dossier_ Cote 3058)

A thorough inquiry was made, and its results form a report dated February 9th, 1909, addressed to M. Hamard by Inspector Laurent, in which it is stated that:

"... She (Mme. D.) lost or destroyed the written reply sent by the Laboratory, but remembers that it said the chocolates were harmless....

Dr. C. stated that two or three years ago he had sent to Mme. D. a box of chocolates, but that he had forgotten to send his card with it, so that the lady heard of the origin of the chocolates only when he himself asked her if she had received them. The lady _never_ told him they were 'bad.'

"Inquiries made by the Munic.i.p.al Laboratory about those chocolates, yielded no results. _No traces can be found that Mme. D. ever sent chocolates to be a.n.a.lysed, either in her own name or in any other name at her address._"

(_Dossier_ Cote 3060)

In this way was yet another "story," most damaging to my cause, told, spread, universally discussed--and finally proved to be entirely false!

Once more I was vindicated, but once more... incalculable harm had been done me.

This fantastic story of the "poisoned chocolates" had a sequel, whether direct or indirect, I cannot tell. At any rate, shortly afterwards, the body of M. Steinheil was exhumed. In December 1908, that of my mother had been exhumed, and now, my husband's remains were once more examined, so that a search might be made for any traces of narcotic or poison.

Dr. Courtois-Suffit, had made a thorough "medical" examination, immediately after the crime, but ten months later, Dr. Balthazard was requested by M. Andre to make a second autopsy!