How Holmes Helped a “Frog” Clear His Name
Dear Sleuths,
Froggy Fletcher’s case of a ruined reputation was unusual, no doubt. But that’s par for the course in our field. Now that the truth behind the Poisoned Pen has come to light, you may want to look over Holmes’ explanation for these curious events. You might have figured out who was out to get Froggy, but did you dig up every clue to be found? Find out for yourself.
Our next case awaits,
The Dear Holmes Team
——
13 February, 1888
My Dear Froggy,
Thank you for remembering me so fondly, and even more so for bringing your singular case to my attention. With your recent letter in hand, I am pleased to say that all the pieces are now all on the board. I have unearthed the truth behind this mysterious assault on your character.
If I may, I will explain how I arrived at my conclusion. First, by outlining the salient points of the case.
At its core, the letter you first wrote to me concerned your relationship with Miss Hendrika Aarden, who does indeed sound like a most remarkable young lady. Miss Aarden has had three other suitors for some time now, one of whom, you believed, sought to ruin you by means of a defamatory letter. You, quite naturally, believe that the reason for this hinged on the young lady’s affections.
The three other suitors were Clarence Gray, Karl Dempwolf, and Robert Bonner.
From the start, you noted that Gray appeared to have more interest in Madam Aarden than her daughter — and Hennie herself rarely mentioned him. With his profession and links to the railroad, it appeared to me that he could be a stalking horse — and so he has proved to be.
Dempwolf, for all of his fancy footwork, seemed to be no suitor at all. He was rarely present, and the formal tone he used to refer to the lady is hardly lover’s talk. You later wrote that Hennie laughingly said that Bonner was not concerned about Gray because he felt “a fake suitor would keep the real thing at bay.” Could Bonner, not have used the same technique — setting his friend, Dempwolf, to pursue the lady to deter others? I believe so, especially as Robert Bonner is one who is “more used to following than leading”. Indeed, it seems that the lady has been very poorly used by those closest to her.
But what of Bonner? Surely his suit is true? Alas, in this, there can be no greater witness than the lady herself. As Miss Aarden said: “a girl can tell when she’s being made love to.” Robert Bonner is a dutiful son — no more, no less.
While I am certainly no expert on the topic, if it pleases you to hear the opinion of a confirmed bachelor, I would say that you, my dear Froggy, are the only “musketeer” who truly cares for Miss Aarden in the way that a potential husband should. And the lady most definitely recognizes it. By-the-by my friend, you really should have paid more attention in class. The lady is quite correct: there are four musketeers.
Putting that aside, and having eliminated our so-called suitors, the question before us becomes not one of disparate and desperate lovers, but one of who has the most to gain if Hendrika Aarden marries Robert Bonner, instead of Frederick Fletcher.
Money is so often, if not the root of all evil, the reason that many evil deeds are done. And, what we have here are two families who stand to make a great deal of money, if Miss Aarden can be persuaded to choose the right suitor.
Rest assured that fathers “playing the exchanges” with their daughters is nothing new. The fairer sex has been treated as capital which must be invested in the most profitable husband, for centuries — and both Aarden and Bonner have much to gain from, as you put it, “a merger.” One is near to going under, one is in secret talks with a railroad consortium. But does Aarden need to control both ranches in order to seal the deal with the railroad? It seems clear from Papa Aarden’s shifts in partiality — from you, to Bonner, but never the other suitors — that he certainly thought so at one point in time.
The most respectable-looking men are often villains and I considered, for a time, that Papa Aarden could have fabricated the letter, perhaps based on information procured by his wife’s private agent. He had, in theory, much to gain from this. He could have used the letter to ruin your chances with his daughter and push through the “merger”. Or — a darker thought surfaced — to use as leverage for his loan. Or even in future business dealings, should Hennie choose another suitor. But he did not. Your assessment of him as one who values fair-play seems accurate, for he gave you ample time to clear your name.
No, it is Bonner who has the most to gain. Manfred Bonner is in debt, without the independent means to pay back his loan. Should Hennie and Robert marry, the Bonners would certainly benefit financially — “for you don’t let family fail”, as you reported he said in your second letter. On the other hand, if they don’t marry, and the railroad gains access to Aarden’s land, then Bonner’s rights to water and the free roaming of his stock would be endangered.
We must remember that all this had been bubbling under for at least two years, since Gray arrived in Baltimore. We can assume that, a year ago, the consortium finally raised the funds they required, and began to move forwards, for that’s when Gray was installed as another of Hennie’s “suitors.” In spite of Mrs. Aarden’s attempts to keep things quiet, it is likely the Bonners knew some of what was taking place. They had no choice but to bide their time. However, as the months rumbled-on, they became increasingly desperate. Their loan payments were due, poor, “dull, old Robert” had still not managed to bag himself the much-wished-for wife, and you were winning both Hennie’s affection and the approval of her parent’s.
At some point, Froggy, Manfred Bonner learnt of your past. It was then that he wrote the letter. The letter itself offers a number of proofs of that. First is the wording. Examine this portion: “The villain fled to these here States before he could be taken to law. You might want to think on what sort of son, a man like that would make, before you ruin Hennie and yourself.”
If your report is accurate, as you say it is, then Bonner Senior used the exact same phrasing — “these here” — during his interview with you, and on several other occasions quoted in your letters. The message was also clearly composed by someone familiar with Hendrika Aarden, for only those who “know and love her” use the diminutive “Hennie”. Furthermore, it was written by someone who has done business with you and knows your full name, Frederick Hawthorn-Fletcher.
Then there is the tone of the missive. You see, Manfred Bonner is a man who has grown used to obedience. He expects his son to woo the lady, and he expects the lady to obey her own father in the same way. The letter is one from a father to a father.
We must also consider how the letter was delivered. No one saw or heard anything. It would surely be impossible for an intruder to approach the Aarden homestead, across winding tracks, past wary animals, without being heard or seen. However, a neighbour, whose property abuts as Bonner’s does, might easily do that.
The question that remains is “How did Bonner learn of your past?”
Given your experience as a child, you’ve been rightly cautious about revealing any details of your life in England, though you have admitted to sharing one important point: “Whenever an account of your latest triumph emerges, my habit has been to speak in such glowing terms about you, that anyone listening might imagine we were the fondest of childhood companions.”
Thanks to my dear friend, Dr. Watson, my name is widely known and my past, while not precisely an open book, is there for the intrepid explorer to discover. It would be but a small task to find out where I was schooled, and look there for the name of Frederick “Froggy” Hawthorn-Fletcher. We know that Robert Bonner didn’t take the opportunity to have his private investigator dig into your past, for he would certainly have told Hennie, immediately, if he’d discovered anything that might improve his odds with the lady.
So that leaves Dempwolf — the newspaperman, who spends so much of his time in the library. Yes, Karl Dempwolf, with his extensive contacts and journalist’s nose, would have been able to dig up the required information. Perhaps the “decades-old story he’d found” was the very same news report from our schooldays? The Times is known, even in backwaters such as the United States, I understand.
If so, then Dempwolf has presumably known since at least May of 1887 — the lady’s birthday — but he kept it to himself. We know this because, again, if Robert had known earlier, he would have used the information to discredit you. So why harbour the secret? The reason was rather simple. Dempwolf possesses that “Old World” sense of propriety, and only told his friend when he realised Bonner was in a time of need. I believe he never would have done so if he had known how Bonner Senior intended to exploit the information.
I should also note that, in all of these machinations, I cannot help but suspect that poor, “dull, old Robert” is hiding his light under a bushel. Hennie seems to have an especially low opinion of the poor boy. What is it she said: “He thought Mama had hired a detective to do some digging into Gray, as a potential husband, I suppose. So, tit for tat, he hired a detective to look into Clarence.” It seems more likely that Robert had intuited who Gray was, and was merely researching the consortium, as Mrs. Aarden had done. You, yourself, saw Gray making “small talk with Robert Bonner” often enough for it to be notable. I would not be surprised if this consortium was playing both parties until they were certain of which farm would be the greater opportunity.
I hope that this letter has put your mind to rest, old friend. As to what you do with the information, that is entirely up to you. However, I will make a few additional comments in the expectation that you will do the right thing.
In your last letter to me, dated February the 9th, you observed that “Madam Aarden ... has a certain ruthlessness about her. She lets her husband come to the bank and appear to be making the decisions, but she will do what’s needed to keep family and home afloat in these difficult times.”
There is little doubt in my mind that Mrs. Aarden is a shrewd business woman. She’s the planner whose foresight has kept the farm profitable when others around her failed. It may seem shocking for a woman who is “perfectly at home” in her neighbour’s house to plot what could be their downfall, but I surmise her intentions are most aligned with her daughter’s wellbeing, rather than her neighbour’s financial success. You will find in Mrs. Aarden, I think, a useful ally.
With respect to the true nature of your father-in-law, pray, put your mind at rest. Papa may indeed favour you for very practical reasons, but the lady’s partiality is there for all to see. Besides, the interview at the bank, which appeared so alarming, was but a test — I’m quite sure. You yourself mentioned that Aarden appraised you “like a man buying a steer.” It seems that he found you quite sound, for almost immediately after, he surrendered the defamatory letter to you so that you could better prove your innocence.
I will also remind you that, just as the Aardens are fighting to protect their futures, Manfred Bonner is also fighting for his property, and for his family’s survival. Should you have the opportunity to help the Bonners, rather than penalise them for errors in judgment, I would think no less of you — quite the opposite. “The West” may no longer be as wild as the dime novels suggest, but good neighbours are not to be squandered lightly.
With fondest regards, your friend,
