gether. In later detective fiction, this convention is repeated; the brilliant detective and his sidekick will often share the same living abode. (Barbour 69) The narrator then gives us an example of M. Dupin's brilliant analytical ability in which they are strolling along the street one night and M. Dupin answers a question the narrator had been asking in his own mind. M. Dupin explains how through the logic of their previous conversations and by observing certain actions in his friend's movements, he was able to deduce at what point his friend had come to a certain conclusion.Not long after this, the announcement is made in the newspaper of the murders, outlining the bare facts of how the two women were found and in what state their bodies were in. The old woman was found in the courtyard with many shattered bones, probably by some kind of club, while her daughter was found stuffed up a chimney feet first. It would have taken superhuman strength to do put her there because of the violent tugs it took from more than one person to remove her. The old woman had just withdrew 4,000 francs in gold from her bank, but the gold was found in the middle of the room. Two voices had been heard, one of a Frenchman, another of an unknown accent by citizens of various and nationalities, but noted to be distinctively shriller and higher.Because an acquaintance of M. Dupin is accused of the murders, he receives permission to investigate the crime scene, a setting which is extremely intriguing since the newspapers have reported that it would be a crime impossible to solve because there was no way for a murderer to escape the locked, enclosed apartment. M. Dupin then begins his method of ratiocination, maintaining that the solution of the mystery is in direct ratio to its apparent insolubility, according to police. He points out to the narrator that although the police believed the windows secured, they were in fact, not. One of the nail heads ...
