The murder was either due to a political or to an individual reason. As no individual reason appears, and the political situation was so troubled and the man murdered so representative, we have to decide that the crime was committed for political reasons.

Political reasons are of three kinds, and these are, as a matter of fact, the same reasons as individual ones are, on their different level: (1) revenge, (2) profit, (3) ?????

Let us suppose the crime was committed for a reason of revenge. Then it could only be committed by some party or group which the dead President, or the party or group he commanded, had reduced to nought, had totally defeated. There were three parties who could do this: the Democratic party, the Bolchevick group and the Freemasonry (who had been one of their centres wrecked, as also an accessory centre).

Let us see if circumstances point to either of these groups.

Of the few facts which we know to have been gathered by police investigation, one is that the criminal went, either once, or twice, or several times (the number of times is unsure) to visit ML at his hotel. This fact became somehow immediately known. It points therefore straight at the Freemasons.

Unfortunately it points too clearly to them. For is it not rather too strange that, if the Freemasons wished to prepare the assassination of a man, they should work out the plot, not, as would be easy, by some obscure lodge, but through the very person of their GM, and by means of visits of the intended assassin to so public a place as the hotel at which he lodged? When the further fact that it cannot be proved that the murdered is a Freemason is established (unimportant if the Freemasons seemed likely to have instigated the crime, for they might well seek an agent outside their society; yet important if it were intended by instigators outside the Freemasonry to set suspicion upon them, when they could hardly get a mason to do so, against his own society), the suspicious circumstances appear, still more clearly.

So the suspicion is that the crime was not committed by order of the Freemasons. But if it were not, then the manifest intention was to put suspicion upon them, and the two facts, taken together, begin to work a theory into shape.

For, by that probable hypothesis, the Democrats are at once ruled out of the way. The Democrats are intimately connected with the Freemasonry. If they committed the crime, and intended suspicion to be purposely thrown somewhere, they would hardly choose a society friendly to their party (owing to anticlerical reasons) to hang suspicion on.

So, out of the three possible parties or groups who could have had the crime committed out of revenge, only the Soviets remain. But supposing it was the Soviets, why should they try to cast suspicion on anyone? and, if on anyone, why on the Freemasonry?

Why should they try to cast suspicion on anyone especially?