Edwin’s curiosity could not be suppressed any longer. He swiftly broke the seal, opened the envelope and removed a sheet of paper from within. Once again his nose was assaulted by a pungent aroma. He felt sure he could detect the scents of sandalwood, attar of roses, cinnamon, frankincense, patchouli, musk, and beneath these, some acrid cloying after-scent that he could not put a name to.
He began to read.
The paper bore a single word as its heading –“Martyrio”.
Edwin had no difficulty in recognising this as a Latin term for “testimony”, in particular that of a martyr about to be put to death. He considered absent-mindedly that the term was perhaps grammatically incorrect when used in this way, but he gave it no further thought and began reading.
“To Whomsoever is reading these words,
“Logic, that sweet sibling of mathematics, has long been an interest of mine. My fascination for the subject is due not only to its stimulation of the cerebral processes, but also to logic’s purity of form and its – oh so useful – practical application to the problems of the manifest world. As with mathematics, logic is pure in that it is entirely free from petty human illusions such as fashion, compassion, sentiment or morality. Rather it rests upon the application of laws greater than those found in either church or courtroom, laws that are rooted in intellect and science rather than in foolish faith or the judgement of twelve good mental weaklings on a jury.
“Moreover, logic can – as I shall demonstrate – be bent to serve the will and purpose of its master, regardless of whether such a purpose be deemed ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ by the lesser intelligences of the general populace. To this end let me present to you a conundrum that has vexed me for some years: ‘How might one commit a perfect crime?’
“I suggest you make yourself comfortable and read on, as through the medium of this letter, I intend to show you.
“Before applying logic to solve this problem, let us first define and agree some terms and parameters.
i) For a crime to be perfect, it must be a crime recognised in law, or by some other self-inflating and objectively irrelevant authority such as religion – preferably it will be deemed a crime both by Church and state. For our purposes here, a crime is not a crime unless it be near universally accepted as such.
ii) The crime must have a manifest reality and the crime must actually occur – I therefore preclude from this discussion petty ‘crimes’ which have no tangible basis in the physical world (such as verbal blasphemy, treason or slander) and also any ‘crime’ which may be deemed to take place only in the heart and mind of the individual or in any other way to lack a concrete nature.
iii) For a crime to be ‘perfect’, it must be unsolved and must remain effectively unsolvable.
“It has been argued that ‘a perfect crime’ would be one that is undetected and undetectable. This I refute. Such a crime would certainly be agreeable, and fit with the concept of a ‘perfect crime’, were it not that it would be scientifically unverifiable. If a man claps his hands in an effort to frighten away lions, this we may consider to be logical. If no lions appear, logically the method may be a sound one. But should the man claim that his clapping drives away lions from his home in London, we should scoff at him and his method, rightly pointing out that an absence of lions does not prove that his clapping has driven them away. So too a man claiming to have developed a methodology for committing a perfect crime cannot simply state that he has done so and offer the lack of the detection of his crimes as proof of their perfection, otherwise he would run the risk of being considered either a simpleton or a lying fool.
“I therefore add further conditions to my definition of ‘a perfect crime’:
iv) At least one person besides the Master Criminal must be aware that the crime has been committed.
“This stipulation will help to ensure the scientific validity of the method. After all, one should hardly simply take the word of a self-proclaimed Mastermind of Crime as I, or rather they, may, of course, be lying. In a puzzle of logic, one must always be on one’s guard against statements which may later prove to be false.
v) It would further be desirable that in addition to at least one person knowing of the commission of the crime (whether by directly witnessing it or by deduction), ideally there should be undeniable physical evidence of the crime – yet naturally, this evidence must be such that it cannot be used to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the perfect crime, or as I might immodestly refer to him, the Perfect Criminal.
“Whilst in theory many crimes might be suitable for the purpose of our little experiment, let us not trifle with inconsequentialities. Let us set the stakes of this game high. Let us assume that the perfect crime must be at the apex of all criminality. Let us choose for our crime nothing less than murder.
“How then may our Perfect Criminal commit a murder and yet remain unfettered by any undue fear of detection?
“Let us first make a few assumptions about our Mastermind.
“Let us assume that he is no ham-fisted bungler apt to leave behind a mass of readily understood clues to his crimes. Let us assume he is a man of high intelligence and diligence, possessed of no small measure of guile. Let us assume he is educated to the highest degree, well placed in society and canny enough to work for the most part through intermediaries and that thus he is able to still further reduce the already limited risk of detection.
“Should then our Master Criminal be afraid of being caught in the perpetration of a crime? Should he fear that he might leave some unfortuitous item behind at the scene of his activities, such as a misplaced monogrammed glove or a carelessly dropped calling card bearing his address? No, for he has a veritable army of lesser criminals to carry out his orders while he, like any prudent general, remains far from the field of conflict and concerns himself primarily with strategy.
“Should he fear the risk of betrayal by one of his deputies? Not if he is canny enough to ensure very few men know his true identity, and also to arrange that those slender few who could identify either his name or his face are themselves in far greater fear of him than ever they would fear a hangman’s noose.
“If then our Master Criminal may justly feel himself safe from the risk of discovery by the victims of his crimes and if likewise he may understandably feel unendangered by the humdrum investigations of the denizens of Scotland Yard, who then should our Master Criminal guard himself against?
“In certain Chinese schools of thought, and likewise among the ancient Manichean philosophers, there exists a concept of a natural law of opposites. For there to be night, so then there must be day. For there to be darkness, so too there must be light. If there is such a person as a Master Criminal, so, inevitably, one day there must come a Master Detective.
“While our Master Criminal may justifiably fear no ordinary policeman, being himself of an extraordinary nature far beyond the reach of normal men, it would only be prudent for our Master Criminal to guard against the possibility of his discovery by an equally extraordinary detective, one who’s wit and knowledge, training and temperament, skills and powers of reasoning are close to being a match for my own. Such a Master Detective might yet see through any obfuscating fog I employed to baffle lesser minds. If he were to apply his superior abilities unceasingly, forgo food and sleep until he’d solved a problem, then he might eliminate six impossible things before breakfast and thus be left with the truth – no matter how improbable it might seem that anyone could truly be a threat to one such as myself.
“That such a Master Detective shall one day arise, I regard almost as an inevitability. Indeed, I feel it is likely I have already become aware his presence, exploring and investigating the outer strands of my web. While I am not entirely certain, it is my belief that the existence of a Mastermind of Crime – though not as yet my actual identity – may already have been deduced by some hidden nemesis. Thus I have taken steps to attempt to identify who among the brightest minds of our time might be disguising himsel
f and hiding amongst my shadows? Who is it that may one day threaten me? Yes, I write ‘me’, for the time for all pretences has now passed.
“I have, thus far, considered eighty-seven potential threats to my continued operation as a Criminal Mastermind – people who I reasoned might, under certain circumstances, prove themselves capable of becoming a danger to my anonymity, or indeed to my very existence. I reasoned early on that I could not easily have so many prominent individuals killed – for most are doctors, lawyers, clergymen, scientists, authors, petty nobles and the like. I could not simply have them all killed, at least not without causing far too great a public outcry and arousing suspicion and interest where as yet there is none. I therefore began to test each of my suspects to determine which of these eighty-seven might truly become a poisoned thorn in my side. I watched them. I studied them. I devised tests. I set puzzles. Those who failed to solve my riddles, I let go. Like a benevolent fisherman throwing back the small fry, I removed the barbs of my hook from the throats of those of lesser intellect, reasoning that if they failed to solve the problems I had presented them with, they certainly could not succeed in outwitting me in games that were played for higher stakes. I whittled down my eighty-seven to forty-three. I reduced forty-three to seventeen. From seventeen I subtracted a further eleven. At last I had half a dozen firm suspects, six Napoleons of Detection who might potentially one day face me in the field. To my great surprise, one was a female. The woman I decided to treat as a special case. The other five men I determined to test still further. Each of these five had passed all my earlier trials so I determined to send each one a puzzle so intricately complex that I could but barely solve it myself. Should anyone decrypt this problem I would know that individual could undoubtedly pose a threat to me. I arranged that the solving of the problem would lead ultimately to the discovery of the bottle containing this letter.
“When I began to write, I addressed you, my dear reader, with the phrase ‘To Whomsoever is reading these words’. In truth, as I am writing this, I do not know which one of you has solved my most artful puzzle and claimed this letter as his prize. If no one has solved my greatest riddle, then I write these words to no one and I am at no risk at all. If you have opened the bottle and for some reason you have not immediately read these words then for reasons which will shortly become clear, I know I still am safe. Likewise, if by remote chance the hiding place of the bottle had been discovered accidentally and its letter has somehow fallen into unintended hands, again I need feel no concern and I am in no danger, as you will realise when you read further. But whoever you are, if you are now reading this, it is only fitting that I explain why I have no fear that you will use my words against me in any court of law.
“You may have wondered why I have set down this information in so rambling a manner? Why haven’t I as yet got to the point? Why do I seem to procrastinate and delay, taking my time in telling you of my plans, drawing out the moment when I will reveal my secrets? Indeed, you may wonder why I have set down any information at all?
“Before I answer that, let me offer some further data. I am well known as a mathematician. My training in the sciences is however both wide and deep. I have no small knowledge of chemistry. There exist certain substances which are described as being pyrophoric – a term stemming from the Greek πυροφόρος, pyrophoros, meaning ‘fire-bearing’. A chemical that is pyrophoric will ignite spontaneously when in air at normal room temperature. I have myself discovered that this reaction can be abated by storing the pyrophoric substance in an inert gas. No doubt others will also soon discover this and publish their findings. No matter. For now, however, I have kept my research and discovery a secret, for I have my own uses for this knowledge. The bottle that contained this letter was filled with such a gas. I trust that you did not imagine the gas was poisonous? I hope I did not give you any undue cause for concern on that account. I can assure you the gas was entirely harmless. Besides which, any poisonous gas would either be so strong as to have killed you instantly when you first opened the bottle or else would be so weak as to be easily dispersed in the air, thus becoming harmless. Now where was I?
“It was no particular difficulty for me to impregnate the paper upon which I have written these words with certain pyrophoric chemicals. It was a far greater task to mix them with a selection of other reagents in order to delay such a reaction so that the paper would not burn the moment it was exposed to air. Such chemicals can create quite an unpleasant smell so I took the precaution of disguising them with a liberal application of varied perfumes. By the time you have finished reading these words, the paper upon which they are written will almost certainly have begun to smoulder imperceptibly and then shortly afterwards will burst into flames, so I advise you to continue reading while you still have the opportunity. In case you are wondering, water will not stop the reaction, it may even hasten it. You have no way of preventing this paper from self-immolating within the next few minutes.
“You may now see why I feel confident that even though I present you with an explanation as to how I will perpetrate a Perfect Crime, I need have no fear of this evidence being used against me, for, within moments, it will no longer exist. By explaining all this in writing, I am presenting you with a full confession, but one that will shortly disappear before your eyes in an almost proverbial puff of smoke. My crime will have a witness, you yourself shall be that witness, but you will be quite unable to act upon your knowledge. I am doubly sure of this.
“I posed the question as to why I have written this letter in so protracted and circuitous a fashion? I will now answer that. I did so in order to increase the time it would take you to read my words. I wished to ensure ample time for the chemicals with which I have soaked and coated the paper you are now holding to do their work. I am sure that even if you read extremely quickly, by now their full absorption is utterly inevitable. I ensured that I coated the paper with a sufficient strength even to penetrate through cloth, in the highly unlikely event you are reading this whilst wearing gloves.
“As time draws irrevocably on, I feel I should however at last make a true confession. I have not as yet been entirely honest with you. Did you expect me to be? Did you think I would play this game by anyone’s rules but my own? In tests of logic one must always consider the possibility that any given statement may be false. Even so, I have not lied to you.
“Or have I?
“I will admit that I have withheld some information up until this point.
“You may have noticed a rather unusual odour emanating from the paper upon which my words are written, an unpleasant smell not fully hidden by the aromas of exotic scents that I applied to this letter. I told you that this was due to certain chemicals with which I had coated the paper. That was the truth.
“I implied that these chemicals were simply to delay the speed at which this letter will begin to combust. That was only partially true. Some of the chemicals I used were employed for this purpose. Others – well, there is no polite way of putting this and I’m afraid you may think me rather ill-mannered, – some of the other chemicals were employed solely for the purpose of poisoning you. This letter was thoroughly soaked in a mixture of some of the finest toxins that can be bought (or indeed, stolen). One I even isolated myself, from the bile ducts of the little known rodent Rattus Gigantus Sumatranus. But I digress, and, under the circumstances, that is rather rude and I hope you will forgive me for my lapse in manners.
“I have conducted rigorous tests of the poisons that have by now been thoroughly absorbed through your skin and are even at this moment coursing through your veins. I would estimate that at present you have probably already lost most motorneural functions, that you cannot stand and are effectively suffering a numbing paralysis in all your limbs— No, don’t try to get up, you will only fall and, besides which, it is quite pointless. Very soon this paralysis will spread to your heart and your lungs. Your pulse will slow and your breathing will become laboured. The toxins will not as yet have
clouded your mind, which, being your greatest attribute, I have generously allowed you to retain as a functioning faculty for as long as possible, as I am sure such an enquiring soul as yourself will be interested to observe all the details of this experience.
“I feel that there is little more to write and, as you have such a short time left, I would not wish to waste it further.
“I bid you a fond farewell and hope that, in whatever moments remain to you, you will be assured that I remain your humble and obedient servant,
“Prof. Moriarty”
* * *
It was hard for Edwin to make out the name through the wisps of smoke spiralling up from the paper, which gently dropped from his now nerveless hands, falling on to the pile of letters arranged upon the table and swiftly setting them ablaze.
As Falls Reichenbach, So Falls Reichenbach Falls
Alvaro Zinos-Amaro
So rapidly does the brain act that I believe I had thought this all out before Professor Moriarty had reached the bottom of the Reichenbach Fall.
Sherlock Holmes, “The Final Problem”
The place is London, the time is October 1892, and the theme is self-banishment.
The Mammoth Book of the Adventures of Professor Moriarty Page 51
