死亡约会 Part II Chapter 2（3）（在线收听）

‘In some senses,’ said Dr Gerard, ‘digitalin may be considered a cumulative drug. Moreover, asregards post-mortem appearance, the active principles of the digitalis may destroy life and leaveno appreciable sign.’

Poirot nodded slow appreciation.

‘Yes, that is clever—very clever. Almost impossible to prove satisfactorily to a jury. Ah, but letme tell you, gentlemen, if this is a murder, it is a very clever murder! The hypodermic replaced,the poison employed, a poison which the victim was already taking—the possibilities of a mistake—or accident—are overwhelming. Oh, yes, there are brains here. There is thought—care—genius.’

For a moment he sat in silence, then he raised his head. ‘And yet, one thing puzzles me.’

‘What is that?’

‘The theft of the hypodermic syringe.’

‘It was taken,’ said Dr Gerard quickly.

‘Taken—and returned?’

‘Yes.’

‘Odd,’ said Poirot. ‘Very odd. Otherwise everything fits so well…’

Colonel Carbury looked at him curiously.

‘Well?’ he said. ‘What’s your expert opinion? Was it murder—or wasn’t it?’

Poirot held up a hand.

‘One moment. We have not yet arrived at that point. There is still some evidence to consider.’

‘What evidence? You’ve had it all.’

‘Ah! but this is evidence that I, Hercule Poirot, bring to you.’

He nodded his head and smiled a little at their two astonished faces.

‘Yes, it is droll, that! That I, to whom you tell the story, should in return present you with apiece of evidence about which you do not know. It was like this. In the Solomon Hotel, one night,I go to the window to make sure it is closed—’

‘Closed—or open?’ asked Carbury.

‘Closed,’ said Poirot firmly. ‘It was open, so naturally I go to close it. But before I do so, as myhand is on the latch, I hear a voice speaking—an agreeable voice, low and clear with a tremor in itof nervous excitement. I say to myself it is a voice I will know again. And what does it say, thisvoice? It says these words, “You do see, don’t you, that she’s got to be killed?”’

‘At the moment, naturellement, I do not take those words as referring to a killing of flesh andblood. I think it is an author or perhaps a playwright who speaks. But now—I am not so sure. Thatis to say I am sure it was nothing of the kind.’

Again he paused before saying: ‘Messieurs, I will tell you this—to the best of my knowledgeand belief those words were spoken by a young man whom I saw later in the lounge of the hoteland who was, so they told me on inquiring, a young man of the name of Raymond Boynton.’