(Which amounted to nothing more or less than telling me: you have been unable to find who these assassins were, therefore, you are the assassin.)
Answer. "I can only repeat what I said at the very start to M. Hamard, in all sincerity, about the men and the red-haired woman I saw, and saw well, around my bed in the circumstances I have described.
"You think it unlikely that the men would have put on hampering gowns in order to steal. Yet, in the murder of M. Remi, which happened eight days after the double murder in the Impasse Ronsin, the murderers were stark naked. That is not more extraordinary than the men in the black gowns. Yet, had I said the assassins were entirely naked, you no doubt would have called me a mad and hysterical woman!"
Question. "Above all we must examine the following point: Is there any real cause to believe that the crime was a banal, commonplace one, committed by vulgar burglars. The answer to this question, it appears to us, should be in the negative, and we will say why. Had the crime been the work of ordinary malefactors, it could, logically, have had no other aim than robbery. Now—even admitting the reality of any theft at your house, on that night—the malefactors would not have left behind abundant and conspicuous booty in the rooms they visited... (Here M. André repeated the list of the valuables left in their places by the murderers.) It is absolutely inadmissible that malefactors who had come to steal would have left a sum of 130 francs (£5 4s.) and so many jewels. Besides, it seems that the burglary was merely a sham, as one may still realise from the photographs in the dossier where one could see the various objects on the ground, scattered in too good order—which does not fit in with the great hurry inherent in all burglaries....
"Further, it was established by the expert ropemaker, M. Chafaroux, on June 16th, that the cord which was used to strangle your husband was taken from the ball of cord in the cupboard of your kitchen; and it is quite evident that the gag of wadding with which your mother was suffocated, and the one which, according to your statements, was used to gag you, came from the parcels of cotton-wool which, on January 14th and 16th, you said were in the rooms on the first floor of your house.
"How can one believe that ordinary criminals would have relied on chance to find (in your house) the instruments for their double homicide and their attempt on your life! Finally, what reason could they have had to spare you? To allow you to survive was to allow a dangerous witness to survive!"
Answer. "It is impossible for me to give you explanation of all this. I can only and simply repeat what I heard and saw. That I was taken for my daughter is not surprising, although it has made so many people smile, since I looked young in those days, and was occupying my daughter's room. Besides, can one say that those murderers really spared me when one thinks of the way they bound me and of how they struck me on the head? Innocent, yes, I am innocent. I had no reason whatever to kill my husband and my mother. I am innocent."
Question. "The various reasons which lead one to eliminate the version of assassins who came to rob constitute as many reasons to believe that the crime was a 'domestic' one. And since you have survived the crime in very peculiar circumstances; since, concerning all the details connected with the crime, you have accumulated 'unlikelihoods', contradictions and lies; since you had a personal interest in the crime, the revelation has gradually been made evident that you took a direct part in the crime."
Answer. "I have taken no part whatever in the crime. Why, why, should I have done so?"
Question. "Not only did you survive, but you had only the appearance of a victim. The way you were bound... was quite harmless, quite complaisant. The cords left no trace round your neck, and mere transient traces on your wrists and ankles.... It is surely not with such mildness that malefactors capable of committing a double murder would have bound you to your bed."