The Egyptian Cross Mystery

“And that is?”

“When Stallings last saw Brad — presumably he was the last person except the murderer who did see Brad — Brad was seated at his checker table playing checkers with himself. There is nothing unusual or incongruous about this; Stallings testified that he often did it, working out moves for both sides — as only an enthusiast and expert will — and I myself can confirm this. Then it would appear that after Stallings’s departure, and while Brad was still playing with himself, Krosac gained access to the study, killed Brad, and so on. Brad had in his hand at the time he was killed one of the red checkers, which explains how we found it near the totem post.”

Ellery rubbed his head wearily. “You say — ‘gained access to the study.’ Just what do you mean?”

Yardley grinned. “I was coming to that. You remember I said a moment ago that I had many theories unsupported by evidence. One of them is that Krosac — who, as you’ve repeatedly held, may be someone very close to us — was Brad’s expected visitor that night, which explains how he got into the house. Brad, of course, being ignorant of the fact that some one he thought a friend or acquaintance was in reality his blood enemy.”

“Unsupported!” Ellery sighed. “You see, I can outline this instant an indestructible case for one theory. Not a stab in the dark, Professor, not a conjecture, but a conclusion reached by clear logical steps. The only trouble with it is — it doesn’t thin out the fog in the slightest.”

The Professor sucked thoughtfully at his pipe. “Just a moment. I haven’t finished. I can offer another theory — again unsupported by evidence, but as far as I can see just as likely to be true as the other. And that is, that Brad had two visitors that night: the person whom he expected, and for whose visit he sent his wife, stepdaughter, and household away; and Krosac, his enemy. In this case the legitimate visitor, whether he came before or after Krosac — which is to say, while Brad was still alive or when he was already dead — naturally kept silent about his visit, not wishing to be implicated in any way. I’m surprised no one has thought of this before. I’ve been expecting you to propound it for the past three weeks.”

“So?” Ellery took off his pince-nez glasses and placed them on the table; his eyes were red and bloodshot. A lightning flash momentarily illuminated the room, painting their faces a ghastly blue. “Great expectations.”

“Don’t tell me you didn’t think of it!”

“But I’m not. I never mentioned it because it isn’t true.”

“Ha,” said the Professor. “Now we’re getting it. Do you mean to sit here and tell me you can prove there was only one visitor to that house on the murder night?”

Ellery smiled feebly. “You place me in an uncomfortable position. Proof is after all dependent not so much upon the prover as upon the approver... It’s going to be slightly complicated. And you remember what that French moralist with the improbable name, Luc de Clapier de Vauvenargues, said: ‘Lorsqu’une pensée est trop faible pour porter une expression simple, c’est la marque pour la rejeter.’ [2] But I’ll get to it in due course.”

The Professor leaned forward expectantly, and Ellery continued, replacing the pince-nez on the bridge of his nose: “My point depends upon two elements: the disposition of the checkers on Brad’s table and the psychology of expert players. Do you understand the game, Professor? I recall you said that you had never played with Brad, or words to that effect.”

“That’s true, although I understand the game. Rather a dub at it. I haven’t played for years.”

“If you understand the game, you’ll understand my analysis. When Stallings entered the study, before quitting the house, he saw Brad beginning a game with himself, saw two moves of the opening, in fact. It was this testimony which led our friends astray. They assumed that because Brad was playing with himself when Stallings last saw him, he was still playing with himself when he was murdered. You fell into the same error.

“But the pieces on the table told an entirely different story. What was the disposition not only of the checkers in play but of those which had been ‘captured’ and taken off the playing board? You will recall that Black had captured nine red pieces, which lay in the margin between the board itself and the edge of the table; that Red had captured only three black pieces, which lay in the margin on the opposite side. Obviously, then, to begin with, Black was vastly superior to Red.

“The board itself, remember, held three kings, or double pieces, for Black, plus three single black checkers; and a meager two single pieces for Red.”

“What of it?” demanded the Professor. “I still don’t see that it means anything except that Brad was playing a game with himself and had worked out a series of moves most disastrous to his hypothetical opponent, Red.”