is that the body was not there. Moreover, if we admit the possibility of
his having been murdered--for that is what concealment of the body would
imply--there is the question: Who could have murdered him? Not the
servants, obviously, and as to Hurst--well, of course, we don't know
what his relations with the missing man have been--at least, I don't."

"Neither do I," said Thorndyke. "I know nothing beyond what is in the
newspaper report and what Berkeley has told us."

"Then we know nothing. He may have had a motive for murdering the man or
he may not. The point is that he doesn't seem to have had the
opportunity. Even if we suppose that he managed to conceal the body
temporarily, still there was the final disposal of it. He couldn't have
buried it in the garden with the servants about; neither could he have
burned it. The only conceivable method by which he could have got rid of
it would have been that of cutting it up into fragments and burying the
dismembered parts in some secluded spots or dropping them into ponds or
rivers. But no remains of the kind have been found, as some of them
probably would have been by now, so that there is nothing to support
this suggestion; indeed, the idea of murder, in this house at least,
seems to be excluded by the search that was made the instant the man was
missed.

"Then to take the third alternative: Did he leave the house unobserved?
Well, it is not impossible, but it would be a queer thing to do. He may
have been an impulsive or eccentric man. We can't say. We know nothing
about him. But two years have elapsed and he has never turned up, so
that if he left the house secretly he must have gone into hiding and be
hiding still. Of course, he may have been the sort of lunatic who would
behave in that manner or he may not. We have no information as to his