The silk on the parasol was strong, but
      the threads of it were run together within. The upper part, where
      it had been doubled and folded, was all mildewed and rotten, and
      tore on its being opened..... The pieces of her frock torn out by
      the bushes were about three inches wide and six inches long. One
      part was the hem of the frock, and it had been mended; the other
      piece was part of the skirt, not the hem. They looked like strips
      torn off, and were on the thorn bush, about a foot from the
      ground..... There can be no doubt, therefore, that the spot of
      this appalling outrage has been discovered.”

      Consequent upon this discovery, new evidence appeared. Madame
      Deluc testified that she keeps a roadside inn not far from the
      bank of the river, opposite the Barrière du Roule. The
      neighborhood is secluded—particularly so. It is the usual Sunday
      resort of blackguards from the city, who cross the river in
      boats. About three o’clock, in the afternoon of the Sunday in
      question, a young girl arrived at the inn, accompanied by a young
      man of dark complexion. The two remained here for some time. On
      their departure, they took the road to some thick woods in the
      vicinity. Madame Deluc’s attention was called to the dress worn
      by the girl, on account of its resemblance to one worn by a
      deceased relative. A scarf was particularly noticed. Soon after
      the departure of the couple, a gang of miscreants made their
      appearance, behaved boisterously, ate and drank without making
      payment, followed in the route of the young man and girl,
      returned to the inn about dusk, and re-crossed the river as if in
      great haste. It was soon after dark, upon this same evening, that Madame
      Deluc, as well as her eldest son, heard the screams of a female
      in the vicinity of the inn. The screams were violent but brief. Madame D. recognized not only the scarf which was found in the
      thicket, but the dress which was discovered upon the corpse. An
      omnibus driver, Valence, (*13) now also testified that he saw
      Marie Rogêt cross a ferry on the Seine, on the Sunday in
      question, in company with a young man of dark complexion. He,
      Valence, knew Marie, and could not be mistaken in her identity. The articles found in the thicket were fully identified by the
      relatives of Marie. The items of evidence and information thus collected by myself,
      from the newspapers, at the suggestion of Dupin, embraced only
      one more point—but this was a point of seemingly vast
      consequence. It appears that, immediately after the discovery of
      the clothes as above described, the lifeless, or nearly lifeless
      body of St. Eustache, Marie’s betrothed, was found in the
      vicinity of what all now supposed the scene of the outrage. A
      phial labelled “laudanum,” and emptied, was found near him. His
      breath gave evidence of the poison. He died without speaking. Upon his person was found a letter, briefly stating his love for
      Marie, with his design of self-destruction. “I need scarcely tell you,” said Dupin, as he finished the
      perusal of my notes, “that this is a far more intricate case than
      that of the Rue Morgue; from which it differs in one important
      respect. This is an ordinary, although an atrocious instance of
      crime. There is nothing peculiarly outré about it. You will
      observe that, for this reason, the mystery has been considered
      easy, when, for this reason, it should have been considered
      difficult, of solution. Thus; at first, it was thought
      unnecessary to offer a reward. The myrmidons of G—— were able at
      once to comprehend how and why such an atrocity might have been
      committed. They could picture to their imaginations a mode—many
      modes—and a motive—many motives; and because it was not
      impossible that either of these numerous modes and motives could
      have been the actual one, they have taken it for granted that one
      of them must. But the case with which these variable fancies were
      entertained, and the very plausibility which each assumed, should
      have been understood as indicative rather of the difficulties
      than of the facilities which must attend elucidation. I have
      before observed that it is by prominences above the plane of the
      ordinary, that reason feels her way, if at all, in her search for
      the true, and that the proper question in cases such as this, is
      not so much ‘what has occurred?’ as ‘what has occurred that has
      never occurred before?’ In the investigations at the house of
      Madame L’Espanaye, (*14) the agents of G—— were discouraged and
      confounded by that very unusualness which, to a properly
      regulated intellect, would have afforded the surest omen of
      success; while this same intellect might have been plunged in
      despair at the ordinary character of all that met the eye in the
      case of the perfumery-girl, and yet told of nothing but easy
      triumph to the functionaries of the Prefecture. “In the case of Madame L’Espanaye and her daughter there was,
      even at the beginning of our investigation, no doubt that murder
      had been committed. The idea of suicide was excluded at once. Here, too, we are freed, at the commencement, from all
      supposition of self-murder. The body found at the Barrière du
      Roule, was found under such circumstances as to leave us no room
      for embarrassment upon this important point. But it has been
      suggested that the corpse discovered, is not that of the Marie
      Rogêt for the conviction of whose assassin, or assassins, the
      reward is offered, and respecting whom, solely, our agreement has
      been arranged with the Prefect. We both know this gentleman well. It will not do to trust him too far. If, dating our inquiries
      from the body found, and thence tracing a murderer, we yet
      discover this body to be that of some other individual than
      Marie; or, if starting from the living Marie, we find her, yet
      find her unassassinated—in either case we lose our labor; since
      it is Monsieur G—— with whom we have to deal. For our own
      purpose, therefore, if not for the purpose of justice, it is
      indispensable that our first step should be the determination of
      the identity of the corpse with the Marie Rogêt who is missing. “With the public the arguments of L’Etoile have had weight; and
      that the journal itself is convinced of their importance would
      appear from the manner in which it commences one of its essays
      upon the subject—‘Several of the morning papers of the day,’ it
      says, ‘speak of the _conclusive_ article in Monday’s Etoile.’ To
      me, this article appears conclusive of little beyond the zeal of
      its inditer.