Chapter 17
　　‘What really happened?’ Poirot repeated.
　　He reached behind him, drew forward a chair and sat down. His manner was now friendly—informal.
　　‘It is a question, is it not? For the digitoxin was taken—the syringe was missing—there was themark of a hypodermic on Mrs Boynton’s wrist.
　　‘It is true that in a few days’ time we shall know definitely—the autopsy¹ will tell us—whetherMrs Boynton died of an overdose of digitalis or not. But then it may be too late! It would be better toreach the truth tonight—while the murderer is here under our hand.’
　　Nadine raised her head sharply.
　　‘You mean that you still believe—that one of us—here in this room…’ Her voice died away.
　　Poirot was slowly nodding to himself.
　　‘The truth, that is what I promised Colonel Carbury. And so, having cleared our path we areback again where I was earlier in the day, writing down a list of printed facts and being facedstraightway with two glaring inconsistencies.’
　　Colonel Carbury spoke² for the first time. ‘Suppose, now, we hear what they are?’ he suggested.
　　Poirot said with dignity: ‘I am about to tell you. We will take once more those first two facts onmy list. Mrs Boynton was taking a mixture of digitalis and Dr Gerard missed a hypodermic syringe.
　　Take those facts and set them against the undeniable fact (with which I was immediately confronted)that the Boynton family showed unmistakably guilty reactions. It would seem, therefore, certain thatone of the Boynton family must have committed the crime! And yet, those two facts I mentionedwere all against the theory. For, you see, to take a concentrated solution of digitalis—that, yes, it is aclever idea, because Mrs Boynton was already taking the drug. But what would a member of herfamily do then? Ah, ma foi! there was only one sensible thing to do. Put the poison into her bottle ofmedicine! That is what anyone, anyone with a grain of sense and who had access to the medicinewould certainly do!
　　‘Sooner or later Mrs Boynton takes a dose and dies—and even if the digitalis is discovered inthe bottle it may be set down as a mistake of the chemist who made it up. Certainly nothing can beproved!
　　‘Why, then, the theft of the hypodermic needle?
　　‘There can be only two explanations of that—either Dr Gerard overlooked the syringe and itwas never stolen, or else the syringe was taken because the murderer had not got access to themedicine—that is to say the murderer was not a member of the Boynton family. Those two first factspoint overwhelmingly to an outsider as having committed the crime!

分享到：