Among the thousand and one anonymous letters I received later on, there was one written by some one who had realised the whole importance of the stolen gowns as a proof of my complete innocence. But in his—or her—desire to prove to me that I was a murderess, the anonymous writer explained: "You stole the gowns yourself or had them stolen by some one!" The prosecution possibly thought the same, but never expressed the thought, for its absurdity was, of course, obvious.
The prosecution, however, wanted to find me guilty even on the fact of such an overwhelming proof of my innocence.
Will the reader now hear how the prosecution dealt with this affaire des lévites, as it was called? Here are the very words used in the indictment on this matter:
"A strange circumstance revealed by the witness Villemant had made it possible to believe for one moment that the narrative of the 'accused' concerning the men in the black gowns could have some character of likelihood...."
After a rapid survey of the evidence given by M. Villemant, Mme. Mazeline, and M. Guilbert... the indictment says:
"The evidence thus gathered seemed likely to throw some doubt on the judicial instruction, and to lend some truth to Mme. Steinheil's narrative. But... firstly, it is certain that the disappearance of the ecclesiastical gowns was only noticed on the evening of May 31st—that is, several hours after the crime. Secondly, the ecclesiastical hats were never lost and have been found. Now, Mme. Steinheil has stated that the criminals wore hats which harmonised with their costumes.... It is, therefore, necessary to wave aside that fable and to note an unimportant coincidence between the thefts of the gowns and the crime of May 31st...."
Could anything be more revolting in its absolute lack of good faith! For surely the prosecution had read the evidence of the various witnesses and was bound to know, firstly, that the black gowns were stolen, not after the crime, but before the crime, on May 30th, as the evidence of M. Feinberg and Goldstein established beyond discussion; secondly, that the report of the Criminal Investigation Department itself, dated June 5th, 1908, contained this sentence, which I have already quoted:
"Concerning the hats, it is useful to recall that on Monday, June 1st, when Mme. Steinheil gave a description of the individuals whom she saw on the night of May 30th-31st, she specified that:
"'The men did not wear hats such as those usually worn by priests, but hats of black felt, the brims of which, bent down, had appeared to her as wide and the crowns higher and more pointed than the hats of ecclesiastics.'"
(Dossier, Cote 914.)