personal character.

"Then there is the complication of the scarab that was picked up in the
grounds of his brother's house at Woodford. That seems to show that he
visited that house at some time. But no one admits having seen him
there; and it is uncertain, therefore, whether he went first to his
brother's house or to Hurst's. If he was wearing the scarab when he
arrived at the Eltham house, he must have left that house unobserved and
gone to Woodford; but if he was not wearing it he probably went from
Woodford to Eltham and there finally disappeared. As to whether he was
or was not wearing the scarab when he was last seen alive by Hurst's
housemaid, there is at present no evidence.

"If he went to his brother's house after his visit to Hurst, the
disappearance is more understandable if we don't mind flinging
accusations of murder about rather casually; for the disposal of the
body would be much less difficult in that case. Apparently no one saw
him enter the house, and, if he did enter, it was by a back gate which
communicated with the library--a separate building some distance from
the house. In that case it would have been physically possible for the
Bellinghams to have made away with him. There was plenty of time to
dispose of the body unobserved--temporarily, at any rate. Nobody had
seen him come to the house, and nobody knew that he was there--if he
_was_ there; and apparently no search was made either at the time or
afterwards. In fact, if it could be shown that the missing man ever left
Hurst's house alive, or that he was wearing the scarab when he arrived
there, things would look rather fishy for the Bellinghams--for, of
course, the girl must have been in it if the father was. But there's the
crux: there is no proof that the man ever did leave Hurst's house alive.
And if he didn't--but there! as I said at first, whichever turning you