蓝色特快上的秘密-蓝色列车之谜-蓝色列车(英文版)- 第54部分

〃If　it　wasn't　Derek　…　if　your　new　theory　is　correct；　it　is　here　that　the　man　left　the　train？〃　he　asked　over　his　shoulder。　

Rather　to　his　surprise　Poirot　shook　his　head。　

〃No；〃　he　said　thoughtfully；　〃no　man　left　the　train；　but　I　think　…　yes；　I　think；　a　woman　may　have　done　so。〃　

Knighton　gave　a　gasp。　

〃A　woman？〃　demanded　Van　Aldin　sharply。　

〃Yes；　a　woman；〃　said　Poirot；　nodding　his　head。　〃You　may　not　remember；　Monsieur　Van　Aldin；　but　Miss　Grey　in　her　evidence　mentioned　that　a　youth　in　a　cap　and　overcoat　descended　on　to　the　platform　ostensibly　to　stretch　his　legs。　Me；　I　think　that　that　youth　was　most　probably　a　woman。〃　

〃But　who　was　she？〃　

Van　Aldin's　face　expressed　incredulity；　but　Poirot　replied　seriously　and　categorically。　

〃Her　name　…　or　the　name　under　which　she　was　known；　for　many　years　…　is　Kitty　Kidd；　but　you；　Monsieur　Van　Aldin；　knew　her　by　another　name　…　that　of　Ada　Mason。〃　

Knighton　sprang　to　his　feet。　

〃What？〃　he　cried。　

Poirot　swung　round　to　him。　

〃Ah！　…　before　I　forget　it。〃　He　whipped　something　from　a　pocket　and　held　it　out。　

〃Permit　me　to　offer　you　a　cigarette　…　out　of　your　own　cigarette…case。　It　was　careless　of　you　to　drop　it　when　you　boarded　the　train　on　the　ceinture　at　Paris。〃　

Knighton　stood　staring　at　him　as　though　stupefied。　Then　he　made　a　movement；　but　Poirot　flung　up　his　hand　in　a　warning　gesture。　

〃No；　don't　move；〃　he　said　in　a　silky　voice；　〃the　door　into　the　next　partment　is　open；　and　you　are　being　covered　from　there　this　minute。　I　unbolted　the　door　into　the　corridor　when　we　left　Paris；　and　our　friends　the　police　were　told　to　take　their　places　there。　As　I　expect　you　know；　the　French　police　want　you　rather　urgently；　Major　Knighton　…　or　shall　we　say　…　Monsieur　le　Marquis？〃

Chapter　35　

EXPLANATIONS

〃Explanations？〃　

Poirot　smiled。　He　was　sitting　opposite　the　millionaire　at　a　luncheon　table　in　the　latter's　private　suite　at　the　Negresco。　Facing　him　was　a　relieved　but　very　puzzled　man。　Poirot　leant　back　in　his　chair；　lit　one　of　his　tiny　cigarettes；　and　stared　reflectively　at　the　ceiling。　

〃Yes；　I　will　give　you　explanations。　It　began　with　the　one　point　that　puzzled　me。　You　know　what　that　point　was？　The　disfigured　face。　It　is　not　an　unmon　thing　to　find　when　investigating　a　crime　and　it　rouses　an　immediate　question；　the　question　of　identity。　That　naturally　was　the　first　thing　that　occurred　to　me。　Was　the　dead　woman　really　Mrs　Kettering？　But　that　line　led　me　nowhere；　for　Miss　Grey's　evidence　was　positive　and　very　reliable；　so　I　put　that　idea　aside。　The　dead　woman　was　Ruth　Kettering。〃　

〃When　did　you　first　begin　to　suspect　the　maid？〃　

〃Not　for　some　time；　but　one　peculiar　little　point　drew　my　attention　to　her。　The　cigarette…case　found　in　the　railway　carriage　and　which　she　told　us　was　one　which　Mrs　Kettering　had　given　to　her　husband。　Now　that　was；　on　the　face　of　it；　most　improbable；　seeing　the　terms　that　they　were　on。　It　awakened　a　doubt　in　my　mind　as　to　the　general　veracity　of　Ada　Mason's　statements。　There　was　the　rather　suspicious　fact　to　be　taken　into　consideration；　that　she　had　only　been　with　her　mistress　for　two　months。　Certainly　it　did　not　seem　as　if　she　could　have　had　anything　to　do　with　the　crime　since　she　had　been　left　behind　in　Paris　and　Mrs　Kettering　had　been　seen　alive　by　several　people　afterwards；　but　…〃　

Poirot　leant　forward。　He　raised　an　emphatic　forefinger　and　wagged　it　with　intense　emphasis　at　Van　Aldin。　

〃But　I　am　a　good　detective。　I　suspect。　There　is　nobody　and　nothing　that　I　do　not　suspect。　I　believe　nothing　that　I　am　told。　I　say　to　myself：　how　do　we　know　that　Ada　Mason　was　left　behind　in　Paris？　And　at　first　the　anspletely　satisfactory。　There　was　the　evidence　of　your　secretary；　Major　Knighton；　a　plete　outsider　whose　testimony　might　be　supposed　to　be　entirely　impartial；　and　there　was　the　dead　woman's　own　words　to　the　conductor　on　the　train。　But　I　put　the　latter　point　aside　for　the　moment；　because　a　very　curious　idea　…　an　idea　perhaps　fantastic　and　impossible　…　was　growing　up　in　my　mind。　If　by　any　outside　chance　it　happened　to　be　true；　that　particular　piece　of　testimony　was　worthless。　

〃I　concentrated　on　the　chief　stumbling…block　to　my　theory。　Major　Knighton's　statement　that　he　saw　Ada　Mason　at　the　Ritz　after　the　Blue　Train　had　left　Paris。　That　seemed　conclusive　enough；　but　yet；　on　examining　the　facts　carefully；　I　noted　two　things。　First；　that　by　a　curious　coincidence　he；　too；　had　been　exactly　two　months　in　your　service。　Secondly；　his　initial　letter　was　the　same　…　'K。'　Supposing　…　just　supposing　…　that　it　was　his　cigarette　case　which　had　been　found　in　the　carriage。　Then；　if　Ada　Mason　and　he　were　working　together；　and　she　recognized　it　when　we　showed　it　to　her；　would　she　not　act　precisely　as　she　had　done？　At　first；　taken　aback；　she　quickly　evolved　a　plausible　theory　that　would　agree　with　Mr　Kettering's　guilt。　Bien　entendu；　that　was　not　the　original　idea。　The　te　de　la　Roche　was　to　be　the　scapegoat；　though　Ada　Mason　would　not　make　her　recognition　of　him　too　certain；　in　case　he　should　be　able　to　prove　an　alibi。　Now；　if　you　will　cast　your　mind　back　to　that　time；　you　will　remember　a　significant　thing　that　happened。　I　suggested　to　Ada　Mason　that　the　man　she　had　seen　was　not　the　te　de　la　Roche；　but　Derek　Kettering。　She　seemed　uncertain　at　the　time；　but　after　I　had　got　back　to　my　hotel　you　rang　me　up　and　told　me　that　she　had　e　to　you　and　said　that；　on　thinking　it　over；　she　was　now　quite　convinced　that　the　man　in　question　was　Mr　Kettering。　I　had　been　expecting　something　of　the　kind。　There　could　be　but　one　explanation　of　this　sudden　certainty　on　her　part。　After　my　leaving　your　hotel；　she　had　had　time　to　consult　with　somebody；　and　had　received　instructions　which　she　acted　upon。　Who　had　given　her　these　instructions？　Major　Knighton。　And　there　was　another　very　small　point；　which　might　mean　nothing　or　might　mean　a　great　deal。　In　casual　conversation　Knighton　had　talked　of　a　jewel　robbery　in　Yorkshire　in　a　house　where　he　was　staying。　Perhaps　a　mere　coincidence　…　perhaps　another　small　link　in　the　chain。〃　

〃But　there　is　one　thing　I　do　not　understand；　Monsieur　Poirot。　I　guess　I　must　be　dense　or　I　would　have　seen　it　before　now。　Who　was　the　man　in　the　train　at　Paris？　Derek　Kettering　or　the　te　de　la　Roche？〃　

〃That　is　the　simplicity　of　the　whole　thing。　There　was　no　man。　Ah　…　mille　tonnerres！　…　do　you　not　see　the　cleverness　of　it　all？　Whose　word　have　we　for　it　that　there　ever　was　a　man　there？　Only　Ada　Mason's。　And　we　believe　in　Ada　Mason　because　of　Knighton's　evidence　that　she　was　left　behind　in　Paris。〃　

〃But　Ruth　herself　told　the　conductor　that　she　had　left　her　maid　behind　there；〃　demurred　Van　Aldin。　

〃Ah！　I　am　ing　to　that。　We　have　Mrs　Kettering's　own　evidence　there；　but；　on　the　other　hand；　we　have　not　really　got　her　evidence；　because；　Monsieur　Van　Aldin；　a　dead　woman　cannot　give　evidence。　It　is　not　her　evidence；　but　the　evidence　of　the　conductor　of　the　train　…　a　very　different　affair　altogether。〃　

〃So　you　think　the　man　was　lying？〃　

〃No；　no；　not　at　all。　He　spoke　what　he　thought　to　be　the　truth。　But　the　woman　who　told　him　that　she　had　left　her　maid　in　Paris　was　not　Mrs　Kettering。〃　

Van　Aldin　stared　at　him。　

〃Monsieur　Van　Aldin；　Ruth　K