None of the ropes found in the office or at the house of Lebrun corresponded with the rope found upon the back stairway. And to a reflecting mind this rope was a revelation. It showed that the murderer might have come from without, or at least contemplated an escape by the roof or from the windows. The bloody linen found in the attic demonstrated that it was from there he expected to make his exit; that there he had, perhaps, entered the house. They should have examined the roofs and the long gutter which communicated with the neighboring houses, but they did not.
That which seemed most important to the examining magistrate was the fact that Lebrun, although Madame Mazel had taken from him his pass-key, had a second one opening the gate, the door of the sleeping-room, and the doors of the antechamber; that, from the first moment when Madame Mazel did not reply to the calls made to arouse her, and when it was perfectly natural to attribute her silence to sickness or to an apoplectic stroke, Lebrun had seemed to fear something worse; and still further that, contrary to his usual custom, Lebrun had on the night of the crime taken to his chamber the key of the gate, which he pretended he had found open in the middle of the night.
What interest could Lebrun have in the death of his mistress?
To this the magistrates replied that Lebrun knew he was left by her will the sum of six thousand livres and half the apparel and linen of Madame Mazel. Might he not have wished to hasten the day when he could come into possession? What seemed to prove this was the fact that it did not appear that his mistress had been robbed after her death. Lebrun himself had declared that fact with a suspicious emphasis. It might have been that, fearing from some words of Madame that he might lose his legacy, lest she should change her will, he had employed for the murder some stranger's hand. Thus they accounted for the evident sojourn of the assassin in the attic, the precautions taken to assure his escape by the roof in case any unforeseen circumstance should render his going out by the door impossible.
So then, if Lebrun's was not the hand which committed the deed, his was the head which had inspired the crime. This was looking at it in the most favorable light, for it was more than probable that the knotted rope had been placed on the back stairway and the bloody linen been concealed in the attic to turn suspicions upon a stranger. The knots in the rope were not drawn tight, and the rope had not been used.
One thing was certain: the perpetration of the crime showed a perfect knowledge of the house and the means of entering Madame Mazel's apartment, and departing without being seen. To Lebrun all this was possible. Alone awake when all the rest of the house slept, having possession of the keys, he could encounter no obstacle. He had an interest for, and the means of, committing the crime.
Such were the reasonings presented by M. René Savonnières, in a petition to the magistrate signed by himself and his brother. He demanded that Lebrun be arraigned and convicted of having assassinated Madame Mazel, and also that he be deprived of the legacy left him by his mistress.
M. Jean Barbier d'Ancourt, a member of the French Academy, undertook the defence of the poor domestic before the judges at Châtelet.
M. Barbier had no little trouble in separating the truth from the mass of errors and prejudices which made up the information. Lebrun, severely interrogated by him, showed at once what he was; naïvely honest, devoted almost fanatically to his mistress, whose weaknesses he sought to palliate even at the peril of his life. It was not from him, but from public rumors, that the advocate learned of certain circumstances which showed in the life of Madame Mazel some mysteries in which without doubt he must seek for the cause of her death.
This Abbé Poulard who had maintained
