Hello again! New information on the Verhaeren case and my word – it is intriguing! I went to find the receptionist who was there that afternoon, but found she was not there – she was fired from her job for negligence as a consequence of these events. Observe:
- At the hotel I discovered construction going on in the reception area – particularly around the grand centerpiece where multiple angels adorn an old-fashioned clock built into the south wall. Perhaps Saint-Jerome used the scaffolding to his advantage, and used it to hide himself in plain sight.
- That day, she was rather exhausted and took an impromptu nap, so she was unable to identify who was coming in and out of the hotel and identify the murderer (sounds like foul play to me). She can’t remember when, but she fell asleep sometime after her lunch break ended at 1pm, and was woken up around 2pm when Verhaeren himself woke her up to ask for the time, and she told him he might as well just look himself and pointed to the large public area clock – 2pm. Before she had fallen asleep again, our ‘Saint-Jerome’ entered the hotel asking whether or not Verhaeren had entered. She replied that he did and further told him what room he was staying in. She fell asleep again, and woke up just in time to see Saint-Jerome exit around 4:30pm when he got into a scrap with one of the construction workers.
By her account, Saint-Jerome spent two and a half hours in the hotel – ample time to commit the murder, move the body, wait for it to burn, and leave the hotel. Besides, there is little other reason to have spent two and a half hours in the hotel by himself. There are some logistical problems with the theory that I have not worked out however; the notion that he killed the man, took the body out of the room and moved it into the furnace without fear of being noticed is an act of almost unbelievable boldness, even recklessness. Yet how could he have done it? Did he cut up the body in the bedroom? No – not a trace a blood. He had to have dragged the body to the elevator all the way from Verhaeren’s room. It would seem too reckless for such a cleanly executed murder.
More research is to be done. I have seen a picture of the man for the first time – he is not a pleasant looking man; short and fat, nearly bald with one of the most hideous mustaches I have ever seen. We’ll see what my investigation turns up regarding him!
Yours Truly,
H. Hefner.
This is a fascinating sounding case! I hope you get to the bottom of it, sounds like some gruesome business is afoot.
Ockham’s Razor aside, however, could this be too simple a solution? As you say yourself: it would be an incredibly bold manouvere in the middle of the day, sleeping receptionist or no. Are there any other possible culprits you may have considered?
Indeed, Mr. Scarab; truth is I would much rather be able to immerse myself into a case and get all the facts, but I am disadvantaged by the litigious nature of modern day justice. I can, however, get much of what I need through good observation and deduction.
I do not know of any other possible culprits who had the opportunity and the motive, and by the testimony of this receptionist it seems that this Saint-Jerome is by far our best bet. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll make a return and see if I can get the number for the remodeling artist who was repairing the grand facade and clock; I’ll see if he saw anything that would be worth further investigation. Beyond that the best that I can do is fit the facts that I have together, as uncomfortable as I am with it.
Yes, it tends to be a bit tied up in paperwork these days, but I’m sure there are reasons for much of it, and I think the advances we’ve made often outweigh the problems their existence cause, the internet being a great example (on a sidenote, I’m a Miss Scarab, not that this is important, but it feels politer for me to say so :))
I don’t blame you. Stay safe, whatever the case, and good luck in your search for the culprit. I think St. Willow who commented here too, below may have a point. This is a very suspicious situation, and we don’t wish for you to be harmed or misled.
Mr. Hefner, I realize that you don’t know me and that this message will sound strange, but I have reason to believe that you are being set up for something dangerous and that this Saint-Jerome is not, in fact, to blame. If you are at all interested, please reply.
I do enjoy this – all of the sudden the intrigue of my cases are finally being noticed! Well, my good St. Willow, have you noticed something about the details which I have given that allow you to conclude that he is being set up? Have you found some other evidence that I do not know about?
Reynald Saint-Jerome is an investigator, much like yourself, with his own blog with which he posts information on his cases. And currently, your cases parallel each other. While it is obviously no secret that there is no love lost between Saint-Jerome and Verhaeren, Saint-Jerome was only led to meet with Verhaeren in his hotel room to try and see eye-to-eye. This meeting never came to fruition, most likely due to the latter’s murder. But the case Saint-Jerome was working on was that of Leslie Okogwu, the street vendor, who was murdered shortly after YOUR meeting with him.
I’m sure you can see that this is suspicious in many ways. I fear that you and Saint-Jerome are being led to meet in a chaotic and disastrous way. If you don’t believe me, his blog is here: http://belgianamongtheenglish.wordpress.com.
I think the key to this is that neither of you were AWARE that your specific murders happened. Saint-Jerome remained unaware of Verhaeren’s murder, and you remained unaware of Okugwu’s murder. You were both being set up!
We have very little of what a professional would call evidence, unfortunately, but I have some suspicions. Please pardon me if I wander a bit. I am pressed for time, and I am afraid I cannot collect my thoughts.
Your case intrigued me, especially so considering I had just read something very closely related only a few days since. Returning to the location where I heard previous mention of this case, I found a report from your suspect himself, giving what he claimed occurred. According to him, a flyer for the speech arrived on his doorstep shortly before the event took place, and, being in the area and a passionate patriot, he attended and got rather caught up in the heat of the moment. Afterwords, Pieter himself called upon his place of residence and requested a meeting that they might attempt to reconcile their opposing views. St-Jerome accepted, and, at the appointed time arrived at the hotel, only to find the victim’s door wide open, and the victim missing. After waiting for a long time, he left in a rage at being stood up, and thought no more of it until later, when he began to be suspicious.
Intriguingly, he ALSO acts as a detective, and was hired by a certain man to search for the Les character that you mentioned a few posts ago. Upon locating him, he coincidentally witnessed your OWN angry encounter with Les, and shortly thereafter, found Les dead. Ironically, his prime suspect is YOU.
This all seems incredibly coincidental, so I will not fault you for being disbelieving of either my information, or the information posted on St-Jerome’s site. True, I suspect he is hiding something, but then again, so are you. In fact, everyone has their own little secrets, no? However, I offer one last piece to the puzzle of recent events. Does the name Arthur Moore ring a bell?
~Sicon112
At first I was intrigued that you all were taking such interest in this case; now I’m beginning to get quite suspicious. I have suddenly been flooded with pleas for people that this man Reynald is innocent based upon little more than the anecdotal writings he has given you. I will not go so far as to accuse you because to do so would be rude, but your trust of this man baffles me.
Are you not at ALL doubtful of this man’s innocence? This man that magical materialized not two weeks ago and yet managed to get onto research the case of some unknown spiv with little more than the acquaintance of a former teacher? Here is what I posit to you; he managed to find out about my hazardous introduction with this man when I was put on the case, committed the act himself and then ‘investigated’ it so that he would point the finger at me!
It’s a clever ruse to use; I have in the past found interested parties whose rhetoric was all for justice and truth in accusing someone else but whose speeches were hollowed with their own wickedness!
Oh I find him quite suspicious. Especially the part where he appeared out of nowhere. You seem to be rather unfamiliar with recent technology, through no fault of your own, but trust me when I say that to pull something like that off in this day and age is very VERY difficult.
My explanation of his side of the story and seeming defense of the man may have something to do with my country of origin, and the laws therein. You see, in court cases where I come from, we hold to the ideal that the defendant is “innocent until proven guilty”. You could say I hold this as a bit of a philosophy, having seen it happen all my life, and being born of parents who both hold law degrees. This manifests in my thought processes as a habit of attempting to, as my other post mentions, look at all facets of a situation. I so very dislike being wrong that I go out of my way, when possible, to attempt to compensate for any errors that I might make. It was presumptuous of me to post something like I did to a man much better at all this than I am, and I do apologize. Still, it seems like St-Jerome isn’t the only suspicious thing in this case, as my post about my misgivings below indicates.
If I have insulted you to the extent that you would like it if I vacate this corner of the internet, please inform me and I shall remove myself from your site.
Do you not find it suspicious that the receptionist just happened to fall asleep right when Saint-Jerome came to meet Verhaeren? Also, just because there were two and a half hours between two of her sightings of him doesn’t mean he was there for that long – she was, of course, asleep. Yes, he is suspicious, but so are you for having been seen angrily confronting Okogwu before he was killed.
Also, I have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the remodeling work is important. I see the piece, and I have a good idea of where it fits, yet I cannot seem to quite put the puzzle together. I’m afraid the hurried state I’m in has addled my thoughts significantly. However, I do believe we are missing something. A conversation with the artist is indeed a good course of action.
I’ve got it! I know why that artist was bothering me! In the blog my fellow commentors have provided a link to, the suspect, St-Jerome, claims to have only been present at the hotel for forty minutes, whereas the receptionist reports a time shift of two and a half hours! This is obviously a large discrepancy, and I can easily think of the most obvious solution to it: St-Jerome lied. HOWEVER, I find that the surest method of discerning the truth in any given situation is by looking at all facets of a situation at once. While you should obviously pursue the trail of this St-Jerome, I believe you should also always ask yourself the questions “What if I’m wrong? How else could this have occurred?” While I am not anywhere close to the level where I could be a true detective, I always loved the idea of detectives as a child, and so attempted to teach my self to analyze situations such as these. While I know I am missing many pieces of the, I shall offer you my conclusion as a question.
Old fashioned clocks such as the one you describe are built so that they may easily be adjusted if they ever lose the time, are they not?
Dear Mr. Hefner-
I am sorry if this happens to disrupt your case, but, in fact, Reynald St. Jerome is innocent.
The description of the man- I recognized him immediately. He is Hercule Poirot- one of the most legendary detectives ever, and a Belgian.
He did not commit the murder. However, he has set up a blog similar to your own, and it is called A Belgian among the English. He is solving the same case as you.
DO NOT think him as a rival. Rather, think of him as another detective, just like you, trying to solve a crime. And we believe, Hugh, that there was a Professor Alan Moore at the scene and he is in fact one of the most dangerous men in the world- PROFESSOR MORIARTY.
He carried a decorated cane with a heavy end, and it was used to smash in the skull of Reynald’s client. He is also using you- AS A PUPPET.
He is turning you, Hugh, against Reynald. He will make you try to kill each other, and once you two are dead, he will try to take over the world.
As I said before, Reynald is a detective, like you. He is also being chased by the authorities. I suggest you to disguise yourself.
Sincerly, the Wild West Pyro.
Poirot? Are you mad, man? He’s fictional! He doesn’t exist! As if fictional beings could possibly exist in space and time among us! What’s next? The Wicked Witch of the West running for President?
In this matter of fiction, to distrust Poirot is to distrust me; and if you distrust me I politely recommend that you find yourself another site.