How Holmes Keyed into a Killer’s Plot
Dear Detectives,
We hope nobody got lost while investigating The Found Key and solving the case of Cornelius Hurtz’s murder. In case you missed it, Holmes is back from his recent travels and took a stab at solving the mystery too — check out his solution below!
Till the next one,
The Dear Holmes Team
——
17 June, 1901
Dear Mr. Brando,
Thank you for your detailed correspondence concerning the murder of Mr. Cornelius Hurtz. Prior to writing this, I sent the San Francisco police a summary of the information I will share with you here; such that they would be compelled to act swiftly and impede our culprit’s flight.
In other words, I am pleased to inform you that I have successfully identified Mr. Hurtz’s killer. If all has gone as planned, then you may well have already learned of their arrest, but even so, I suspect you will be left with several questions concerning the nature of this crime, and how I deduced the killer’s identity.
The truth is that I was enabled to solve this case by nothing more than the letters sent to me by you and your client, Mrs. Margaret Hurtz. I will put forth my process below.
From the start, the horror of this murder was plain to see. The strange locket and ominous bloody numbers made for a singular case, no doubt, still I was focussed on a small set of details, which suggested the case required attention without delay. Based on the initial reports, there was no evidence indicative of a forcible entry, and nothing out of the ordinary was heard before, or during the presumed murder. In addition to this, Mr. Hurtz had been found in a “secret” apartment, of which not a single other person around him claimed to possess knowledge.
This is all to say, the setting and circumstances of the murder, as well as its grotesque nature, immediately suggested to me that it had been committed by somebody well known to the deceased. That person, I surmised, was already within our purview, and had likely feigned ignorance when asked about the apartment in South Park, or rather, the site of the murder. Unfortunately, this still left us with a handful of suspicious individuals. Namely, the man’s wife, Margaret “Maggie” Hurtz, his sister, Amy Hurtz, and his secretary Joseph Reynolds.
In her first missive, Mrs. Hurtz described her husband as a proper, esteemed individual with no profound grievances, who treated his staff with the utmost respect and who was involved in prominent social circles in San Francisco. She mentioned occasional arguments with his sister and his secretary, and expressed frustration with your progress, Mr. Brando, and that of the police. She also denied knowledge of the apartment in South Park. Yet, the observations in your first letter, which stated that the relationship between her and the deceased was “not as rosy as portrayed”, did not paint a clear picture. She could have been playing the part of a grieving widow to blind investigators, cast doubt on others, and ensure her own freedom from scrutiny.
On the other hand, there was the possibility of Mr. Reynolds as our culprit. Your report (dated 11 June) revealed that Hurtz and Reynolds had been close friends until two months prior to the crime, and that there had been a significant argument between the two less than a month prior, allegedly over undisclosed funds in Japan. This argument was confirmed by Hurtz's accountant, William Golding, though he found no evidence of relevant funds in Hurtz’s accounts. Although Mrs. Hurtz was unaware of these funds, and perceived Reynolds as almost a “nurse” to her husband, perhaps the man was taking advantage of Mr. Hurtz. I thought, if Mr. Hurtz had been party to questionable business transactions, for instance, then his secretary might have been exploiting knowledge of the fact to extort money from him.
Last but not least, was Mr. Hurtz’s travelling sister, Miss Amy Hurtz. Regarding her, there was but the most limited bits of information – most of it somewhat alarming, in light of her brother’s disappearance and death. One might have thought to dismiss her as the killer based on the fact she claimed to have left for Montreal for the remainder of the season, but the only evidence of her travels was her absence. There was nothing truly indicating she left San Francisco or arrived at Montreal, which meant there was some possibility that she was responsible for the murder, if not privy to its circumstances.
Her motive could have easily been related to her recent, explosive quarrel with the victim, I considered, for what would have compelled Mr. Hurtz to cast his sister out of his house? She might have been threatening or blackmailing him, but without additional evidence, I was far from a sound hypothesis. Indeed all my theories, including those involving Mrs. Hurtz and Mr. Reynolds, largely consisted of speculation. My one certainty in a sea of queries was that Amy Hurtz needed to be found. Regardless of her relation to the crime, she possessed knowledge that Mr. Hurtz wanted kept secret – knowledge that would likely help explain his death.
Mrs. Hurtz’s subsequent letter, dated 13 June, and yours of 14 June, did not explicitly provide this knowledge, but the introduction of Mr. Jason Phelps did allow me to shorten our existing list of suspects.
Upon learning Mr. Phelps was staying at the Powell Street Boarding House, in the room corresponding to the key found in Hurtz’s pocket, my instincts declared him a suspect. “Was he the white-haired man threatening Hurtz?” I thought. But as I analysed the information provided by Mrs. Hurtz, and the details uncovered by your work, I began to discern the truth about his relationship to the crime, and more importantly, to the deceased.
To better understand how I arrived at my hypothesis, consider the following two points, which I assure you, only appear to be unrelated to each other.
1) In response to a photograph of Cornelius Hurtz, Mr. Nobokov remarked to you that he “thought the man from the photograph looked like someone staying at my boarding house. Then I realised I was wrong. Not the same guy.”
2) On her visit to the silversmith, Mrs. Hurtz learned that her husband had rather specific requests when commissioning the mysterious locket, which was delivered to him the morning following his death. Namely, a “refined locket ... without much flourish ... Not rounded ... Just a square to hold a small photograph”.
According to the silversmith, this “simpler” locket had been commissioned for somebody Mr. Hurtz loved, and given the photograph of a woman inside, it might seem as if it was plainly intended for a lover. But the simplicity, or rather, the lack of intricacy and flourish in its design, seemed unusual, especially if it was meant to impress a mistress. Accordingly, my suspicion was that it was a gift for someone dear to Mr. Hurtz, but not a lover – perhaps somebody who would dislike an extravagant, or delicate-seeming locket. Bearing in mind Mr. Nobokov’s remarks about the similarities between “the man from the photograph” and Phelps, I conjectured that the intended recipient was the boy, who, I thought then, and know now, is surely of the same blood as Hurtz.
But how exactly was Jason Phelps related to Hurtz and the crime? And was he our killer? I will confess that there was one minor item in Mrs. Hurtz’s letter that illuminated the killer, but it was on receiving your last letter, alongside Mrs. Hurtz’s, that I was able to refine my theory and explain all the questions at hand, including who assassinated Cornelius Hurtz.
Putting aside briefly Mrs. Hurtz’s final letter, your missive of 16 June supplied me with a mound of evidence, indicative of the fact that Mr. Phelps was innocent, and that our conniving killer had taken several measures to throw us from his identity.
Let us first examine the truth behind Jason Phelps. His account of finding, and approaching Mr. Hurtz, brought forth a new question: Who was Phelps’ mother, and how did she know Mr. Hurtz? The answer was delivered by that same letter, wherein you described the messages addressed to “M.P.”, found by Amy Hurtz, and the photograph in Reynold’s home, labelled “Mildred”.
There is little doubt in my mind that M.P. is in fact Mildred Phelps, Jason Phelps’ mother and a past lover of Cornelius Hurtz’s. I will go further so as to posit that Mildred Phelps was, and remains, an obsession in the eyes of Joseph Reynolds, who once intended to propose to her, and who you may have now deduced is our killer. Of this I became consummately certain in the short time it took me to read but two sentences, Mr. Brando.
You wrote that when Reynolds learned his hypothesis involving Japanese criminals had been refuted, “He was clearly embarrassed ... but it did not entirely convince him. ‘You don’t know these sorts of criminals! They’re wealthy,’ he cried, wringing a mess of a fine white mop.” His embarrassment was rather shock, and panic, following the realisation he had made a fool’s error when attempting to incriminate a faceless foreign killer. Upon reading the latter part of your observation, I am also inclined to believe that you did not interrupt him cleaning his home when you visited. You interrupted his preparations for absconsion, part of which included ridding his white wig of the stains of evidence.
As was noted by Phelps, Mr. Reynolds was present when the boy confronted Hurtz with his mother’s obituary, which is to say, if Reynolds did not already know about her relationship with the deceased, he would have then found out. He would have also simultaneously learned, alongside Mr. Hurtz, about the son that resulted from their dalliance. I surmise that once Reynolds learned of the extent of their romance – of the existence of a child – his own relationship with Hurtz suffered an irreparable blow, and thus began his plotting.
Needless to say, he aimed to use his knowledge of Hurtz’s private life, and of his Japanese clients, to shield himself from suspicion. He exploited that same knowledge to surprise Hurtz on the evening of his murder, at his apartment in South Park, before he was set to meet with his son.
As for the coming days... By the time you are reading this, Reynolds will have been apprehended by police, and all that remains is the delicate task of informing Mrs. Hurtz of the results of our investigation. She will have to meet the boy, Phelps, as well, considering Hurtz’s estate and the plans for the apartment. This will be difficult, naturally, but I urge you to remind Mrs. Hurtz to consider the evidence we have uncovered.
In spite of her husband’s secrecy, what we have found throughout this investigation suggests that Cornelius Hurtz was merely attempting to provide assistance to an old sweetheart, whilst trying to evade any sort of scandal. Though there were aspects of his life that he evidently kept obscured, we only possess evidence in support of the fact he was a good-hearted, loving man.
Mr. Brando, I admire a fellow who, like myself, does not just see but observes. You should know that although I informed the San Francisco police of my findings, I ensured they were well apprised of your work, and how crucial it was in breaking the case. I wish you the best of luck in your next endeavours, and should you ever come across a baffling case, please know that you may always contact myself, or Watson, for counsel. It is my hope that we may do the same should we find ourselves in need of an additional pair of eyes in America.
Yours with esteem,
P.S. I noted that there was a “minor item” in Mrs. Hurtz’s second letter, pointing to the true killer. This item was in fact Reynolds’ admission to knowledge of the secret apartment!