Editors’ Biographies
Chansik Park is a Professor at the School of Architecture and Building Science and a former Dean of the Graduate School of Construction Engineering of Chung-Ang University in South Korea. Professor Park has published over 100 papers in peerreviewed journals and conferences internationally and has served editorial board member and reviewer of many international journals including Automation in Construction and International Journal of Project Management He has been the recipient of numerous academic and professional awards, including the prestigious Elsevier Atlas Award in recognition of ‘outstanding achievement and significant positive contribution to society’.
Farzad Rahimian is a Professor of Digital Engineering and Manufacturing at Teesside University, UK. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Smart and Sustainable Built Environment and Associate Editor of Automation in Construction. He is the author and editor of a number of books including Industry 4.0 Solutions for Building Design and Construction (Routledge, 2019) and Industry 4.0 Solutions for Building Design and Construction (Routledge, 2021)
Nashwan Dawood is a Professor of Digital Construction in the Centre for Sustainable Engineering at Teesside University. His expertise is in sustainable infrastructure and in modelling ways to ensure carbon reduction in construction, housing and engineering projects. He has long-standing experience in undertaking research projects with major industrial partners in the areas of 5D modelling, serious game engine technology, Building Information Modelling, and the application of digital technologies for energyefficient buildings.
Akeem Pedro is a Research Associate at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, South Korea. His research focuses on Technology Enhanced Learning, Interactive Learning Environments, Knowledge Engineering and Informatics for construction safety and health. He has published and co-authored over 20 papers in international journals and conferences, garnering over 900 citations.
Dongmin Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture and Building Science at Chung-Ang University. His research interests lie in the integration of construction equipment, method, planning, scheduling, and control to support a better humanrobot collaborative working environment. Dr Lee has published around 40 papers in various journals and conferences internationally. He has also served as a reviewer of many international as well as national journals.
x Editors’ Biographies
Rahat Hussain is currently working towards PhD degree at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, South Korea. His current research works focus on construction informatics, technology-enhanced education, metaverse, visualization technologies for construction safety, education, and management.
Mehrtash Soltani earned his PhD from the University of Malaya in Malaysia. With over a decade of research expertise in building materials, waste management, and construction safety management, he currently serves as a research associate at ConTi Lab, located at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, South Korea.
Contributors
Abbas Muhammad Sibtain, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Akanmu Abiola Abosede, Myers Lawson School of Construction, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Aminudin Eeydzah, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai Johor, Malaysia
Arashpour Mehrdad, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia
Bairaktarova Diana, Department of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Chauhan Jatin Kumar, School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom
Daniel Emmanuel, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Dawood Nashwan, School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
Dudhee Vishak, School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
Dzuwa Christopher, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Elghaish Faris, School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom
Gonsalves Nihar James, Myers-Lawson School of Construction, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Haahr Meinhardt Thorlund, University College of Northern Denmark (UCN), Aalborg, Denmark
Hosseini M Reza, School of Architecture and Building, Deakin University, Australia
Hussain Rahat, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Jiancheng Shan, Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
Kocaturk Tuba, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Australia
Laishram Boeing, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati, Assam, India
Le Thai-Hoa, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Ledari Masoomeh Bararzadeh, Energy Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Lee Doyeop, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Lin Jacob J., Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Matarneh Sandra, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
Miranda Arturo De Jesús, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Molusiwa Ramabodu, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Musonda Innocent, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Nguyen Linh, Myongji University, South Korea
Ogunseiju Omobolanle, School of Building of Construction, College of Design, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Onososen Adetayo, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Park Chan-Sik, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Park Man-Woo, Myongji University, South Korea
Pedro Akeem, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Pham Hung, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Pidgeon Andrew Gerard, School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
Rahimian Farzad Pour, School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
Saar Chai Chang, Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
Sharma Nandini, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati, Assam, India
Shih Yun Ting, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Soltani Mehrtash, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Sood Rhijul, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati, Assam, India
Vanderhorst Hamlet Reynoso, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
Vukovic Vladimir, School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
Yang Jaehun, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
Zaidi Syed Farhan Alam, Chung-Ang University, South Korea
1 Multi-user Virtual Reality-Based Design Review of Students’ Construction Designs
Meinhardt Thorlund Haahr
University College of Northern Denmark (UCN), Aalborg
1.1 Introduction
A construction process is considered successful if the construction is completed on time, at the agreed price and quality and with a high degree of customer satisfaction. Unfortunately, there are many examples of this not being achieved (Shirkavand et al., 2016). McKinsey reported that 98% of megaprojects are associated with overruns or delays, with an average cost increase being 80% of original budget and least but not last with an average delay of 20 months (McKinsey Global Institute, 2015). Among others, they report the cause being, lack of interdisciplinary collaboration and accumulation of unresolved issues. According to the report conducted by The Danish Construction Federation, in collaboration with Chalmers University in Gothenburg and the company BIMobject, the Danish private construction sector can save up to 10.5 billion DKK (approximately 1.41 billion Euro) by proper use of digital tools and improving communication in the design phase of a construction project (Malmgreen, 2020). Among other things, they conclude that economic profit can be gained in the transition between design and construction phases. Here, several ambiguities often arise between consultants and contractors, leading to misunderstandings and disagreements between the partners.
1.1.1 Communication
Communication, especially information delivery, depends on the context in which the information is presented, the background of the sender and receiver as well as their natural environment (Berlo, 1960). For information to be delivered, it must be conceptualized and coded in the form of language, text and/or a medium. The prerequisite for encoding and decoding to be successful is familiarity with the codes that apply in the culture, in which the communication takes place (Hall, 1980). Design and construction of buildings and especially its building services are interdisciplinary and complex processes, as each building is unique, the partners are many, with different educational backgrounds and change from project to project. Finally, several of the stakeholders, such as users and the client, are not necessarily building professionals.
1.1.2
Design Review
During the design process, design reviews are conducted in order to detect omissions and defects, also referred to as issues. Design and execution of building is a complex process, as each building is unique, and the partners are many and different from project to project. The current design and review processes in the design phase are predominantly
DOI: 10.1201/9781003408949-1
communicated via media such as Building Information Model (BIM), design review in the construction phase is predominantly communicated via media such as 2D drawings and descriptions and to a lesser extent 3D models. (Haahr et al., 2019; Johansson and Roupé, 2019). According to space cognition theory (Golledge, 1991), which is grounded in visuospatial skills, processing and working memory, information delivery in current media is abstract (Figure 1.1). They place high demands on the individual actor’s ability to encode and decode information, and as consequence a higher cognitive workload for the actor (Johansson and Roupé, 2019; Kwiatek et al., 2019).
1.1.3 Virtual Reality
Virtual reality (VR) offers a solution to this problem. By using VR, it is possible to achieve a more natural and intuitive design review in a size ratio of 1:1, similar to that used in erected buildings. The goal is that the technology will result in actors arriving at the same conclusions as they would in a real-world investigation. According to Windham and Liu, VR significantly improves the (1) understanding of space, (2) detecting and understanding of potential issues and (3) understanding of functionality (Windham and Liu, 2018). Furthermore, VR gives a common base of reference in a 1:1 scale, which gives actors from the Architectural Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry improved ability to (1) understand the building as whole, (2) decode the intended design compared to 2D drawings and 3D models in BIM and lastly (3) detect clashes and design errors before commenced work (Johansson and Roupé, 2019). A literature study conducted by the author concludes, that existing studies argue that VR can improve design review process in the designing phase of a building (Haahr, 2021). Furthermore, VR is mature for use in the industry and that existing research lacks investigation with many actors in a multidisciplinary environment, which can give more transferable results.
One disadvantage with existing VR is that most commercialized applications only involve a single user experience. As opposed to multi-user, the common base of reference is gained individually. From the author’s own observation, collaboration with single-user experience (1) leads to actors spending shorter time in an immersive VR experience or
Figure 1.1 Abstraction pyramid – inspired by Kjems (2000).
(2) rapidly taking off VR equipment, when reviewing a design. Furthermore, VR is associated with expensive and troublesome setups, which causes resistance to the adoption of the technology. Fortunately, Prospect offers an easy-to-use and multi-user solution intended for interdisciplinary immersive collaboration, and is supported by low-priced VR equipment, Oculus Quest 2 (PROSPECT BY IRISVR, 2022).
The aim of this study is to investigate the value of multi-user VR-supported design review of buildings in a multidisciplinary collaboration.
1.2 Method
The physical frame around this study was at an annual event at UCN, called The Digital Days (DDD) (de Digitale Dage, 2022). The purpose of DDD is to bring together students from different education within the AEC industry to design a building, where the main goal is to learn digital tools centred around BIM. For the event, students from different disciplines within AEC industry, work in groups, aiming to use digital applications to design building projects.
1.2.1 Case
The case was a multi-story building with a real client. Each group received the official material of the Schematic Design, including a Revit model, see Figure 1.2. Within three days each group move from Schematic Design to Detailed Design, including considerations and a rough design of Architecture, MEP and Structural bearing system. Each group had a supervisor from the local AEC industry, which supported the group with his own experience and knowledge from the AEC industry. The groups compete in making the best project, by exploring methods, digital applications and collaboration. Before and during the event, various presentations are held by companies, which are to inspire the students in their work.
Figure 1.2 An extract of the Revit model and shows a 3D view, ground floor, first floor and second floor.
1.2.2 Data Collection
This year had particular focus on VR, which included two intensive days of VR prior to the DDD competition. This included different lectures in the use of VR, both theoretical and practical from two Danish companies. The theoretical lectures focused on the technology and existing studies on VR in the AEC industry, whereas the practical lectures focused on the practical use-case and value of VR based on their experience within the AEC industry. To get some hands-on experience, the students were introduced to different applications for issue detecting and handling, among here Navisworks for clash detection and Prospect for immersive and collaborative design review. For this study, data were collected during and after the three days of competition, as shown in Figure 1.3. During the DDD competition, a VR room was set up for voluntary design review. The VR room consisted of four sets of Oculus Quest 2 (OQ) for use in Prospect, furthermore, students could also participate with they’re desktop (DT). Data was collected through three sources.
1 Observation during the design review sessions: During the observation, quantitative data was noted, such as number of OQ and DT users as well as time used. Furthermore, qualitative data was also noted, such as how the design review process proceeded as well as interactions, statements, announcements and body language between VR users.
2 Issue report from design reviews: Groups that used the issue-handling tool built in Prospect, handed in their issue report, which consisted of qualitative data, such as number, discipline, type and priority of issues.
3 Survey: A survey was conducted after the competition and use of VR room. It consists of both qualitative and quantitative data related to their individual opinion regarding VR and experience during the VR introduction and/or VR room.
1.3 Results
During the competition period, a total of eight design review sessions were conducted, see Table 1.1. The sessions were conducted in the VR room by different groups during the DDD. In total 25 users participated in a total time of 201 minutes, 18 OQ and 7 DT users. On average, rounded to whole persons, in total three users, two OQ and one DT, in a 25-minute session.
Figure 1.3 An overview of data collected during this study.
Table 1.1
Session 1 was the greatest and one of the longest sessions, with a total of six users, four OQ users and two DTs, and 39 min long. The longest session was 40 minutes, which was conducted in session 6. On the other hand, in four sessions only two users were participating, in which two sessions had two OQ users and the other two sessions had one OQ and one DC user. In the case of two OQ users, the sessions lasted 15 minutes, which was the two shortest sessions conducted.
1.3.1 Design Review Process
As mentioned in Section 1.2, the VR-supported design reviews were optional for the students participating in DDD, where the main objective of DDD is to learn digital solutions based on hands-on experience and own reflections. Therefore, no instruction was given on how to perform design reviews in VR. As shown in Table 1.1, in six out of eight sessions, at least one DT user was participating. Interestingly enough, in all six sessions, the role of the DT user was to document the issues detected by the OQ user(s). In all eight sessions, the role of the OQ user was to review the models and detect issues. The documentation for registered issues was handled in four different ways, Building Collaboration Format (BCF), screenshots, hand notes or no documentation. In four out of eight sessions, the detection of issues was documented in the issue-handling tool in Prospect, in which supports BCF. This allows the users to create a so-called issue, which among other things saves the location of the issue in the 3D model, screenshot including any animation (left and right, Figure 1.4) and/or measurements (left, Figure 1.5) created in VR, description, status and to assign responsibility to a project participant. In session 3 the documentation consisted of DT users taking screenshots in Prospect and reporting and describing the issues in a Word document. In session 8, the documentation consisted of DT user taking analogy hand notes on a piece of paper. Common for both sessions 2 and 5 was that no documentation was conducted. Interestingly, these were also the only two sessions where no DT user participated. Even though, this does not mean that the design review session was useless. In both sessions, the users gain an improved understanding of the project and issues were also detected. For instance, in session 5, when looking at a bearing beam, one OQ user states “This one is too high up”. Furthermore, during another conversation, one OQ user states “The suspended ceiling is floating and
Figure 1.4 Examples of issue registration in Prospect. (Left) Hard class between ventilation duct and ceiling in session 5. (Right) Omission of stair rail from session 6. The animation shows where stair railing is to be placed.
Figure 1.5 Examples of issue registration from session 1in Prospect. (Left) An issue from poor accessibility in the kitchen, including a measurement supporting the claim. (Right) An issue of wrong choice of material in the bathroom floor.
also it must be lowered”, and the other one answers “The models off-set is completely wrong”. Lastly, when finishing the design review one OQ user states “We made a mess”, where he implies that there are a lot of problems they have not noticed when designing and reviewing the project in Revit.
Three different approaches were observed, structured, semi-structured and nonstructured. In four out of eight sessions, a structured approach was conducted. In the structured approaches, the participants had made a detailed plan of the design review session in advance, which included they had prioritized and scheduled walking path as well as a prepared list of point of interest to be reviewed in a joint force. For instance, in session 1 they start with the first room on the ground floor and begin with the first thing on the list, which in this particular case was collisions. In two out of eight sessions, the approaches were non-structured. In the non-structured approaches, there was no plan for the design review session. The participants started walking in random directions and walked around looking announcing what caught the eye. In the semistructured approaches, there was not necessarily a plan in advance, but during the design review session, the participants, especially the DT, felt a need to start structuring the process. This was mainly because it was difficult for the DT to keep track of the issues being reported.
1.3.2 Issue Report
As shown in Table 1.1, in four out of eight sessions, the issue report was documented using issue-handling tool in Prospect. In Figures 1.4–1.6, six examples of issues from the issue report are shown. In this section, these issues are analysed and classified. In total 48 issues were registered in the four sessions. In session 1 a total amount of 19 issues was registered and in relation to effectiveness 0.49 issues were registered per minute, which was the highest score in relation to total amount and effectiveness. In session 4 total amount of six issues were registered and in relation to effectiveness, 0.24 issues were registered per minute, which was the lowest score in relation to total amount of effectiveness. On average a total of 12 issues were registered whereas 0.37 issues were registered per minute.
Going through all the issue reports, the issues were categorized in relation to type, discipline and priority. For each category issues were classified, as shown in Table 1.2.
1.3.2.1 Type of Issue
Four different types of issues were identified and classified as follows.
Omission was used when something is missing from the model. A total of 12 issues were classified as omissions. Among these issues the description was “Missing suspended ceiling” or “Missing stair rail”, an example is shown in Figure 1.4 (right).
Accessibility was used for one single issue, which was described as “Kitchen Accessibility”, this example is shown in Figure 1.5 (left). This issue was also noted in the observation in session 1, as one user moved into the kitchen and stated that there was not
Table 1.2 Shows issue report from Prospect, categorized by type, discipline and priority
Figure 1.6 Examples of issue registration in Prospect. (Left) Collisions with elevator shaft and ventilation in session 1. (Right) Collision with elevator shafts and ventilation in section session 4.
enough space for proper passage in the kitchen. This was followed up by a measurement in VR, that confirms his claim. This issue was then registered in the issue report as “Kitchen Accessibility”.
Hard clash was used when two or more objects collide in the model, an example is shown in the left picture of Figure 1.4. A total of five issues were classified as hard clash. In all five cases, the issue consisted of MEP colliding with other BIM objects, such as “Collision between ventilation and bearing beam” and “Plumbing colliding with above floorplan”.
Defect was used when an object has been modelled poorly or misplaced and not necessarily is clashing. A total of 40 issues were classified as defect, which consisted of 63%. Examples were “Floating Wall”, “Movement of elevator shaft” and “wrong material”, an example is shown in Figure 1.5 (right) and Figure 1.6 (right and left).
1.3.2.2
Discipline
The issues were classified into three different disciplines, Architectural, Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) and Structural. With a total of 35 issues, Architectural issues were by far the highest amount registered. Followed by MEP and Structural, which consisted of respectively 11 and 2 issues. In some cases, it was not clear who was responsible for correcting the issue. In this case, this was discussed during the design review sessions.
1.3.2.3
Priority of Issue
The issues were also classified by their priority. (1) Trivial was used for issues that were easy to fix and needed no interdisciplinary coordination, such as “Ventilation supply fitting placement” and “missing glazing on the window”. A total of 12 issues were registered as trivial. (2) Low was used for issues that were easy to fix, but couldn’t be decided by a single person such as “Placement of suspended ceiling”. A total of four issues were registered as low. (3) Medium was used for issues that were somewhat more difficult to fix and affected at least two disciplines. A total of 12 issues were registered as medium and examples were “Ceiling level height” and “Misplacement of stair landing”. (4) High was used for issues that were difficult to fix and affected multiple disciplines. A total of 13 was registered as high and was the highest amount. Examples were “Ventilation duct rout collides with elevator shaft” and “Floating Bearing column”. (5) Critical was used for issues that affected multiple disciplines and in solving the issue, may have caused new issues. Examples were “Movement of elevator shafts”, see Figure 1.6 (left and right), and “collision between ventilation and bearing beam”.
1.3.2.4
Model-Confirmation and Solution-Discussing
In the design review sessions, the participants typically reviewed the whole model. In all eight sessions, there were incidents where participants started addressing solutions of the registered issues during the design review session, in order to get an agreement on how to move on. Furthermore, there were many examples of participants confirming their model, such as the following statements from an OQ user “The bearing beam is good enough” or the conversation between an OC and DT user; OQ said “Is the suspended ceiling not too faar down?” and the DT user replied, “Let me check
that … no, it is good”. It is noteworthy to mention, that confirming the model was very valuable, however, these confirmations are not shown in the issue report. Lastly, it was also observed that accessibility was a subject that was often discussed in many sessions, however, as shown in Table 1.2, only one issue was registered in issuehandling tool.
1.3.3 Communication and Interaction
During all eight sessions, observations were made of the participants’ interactions, statements, announcements and body language. It is important to mention, that when a user in Prospect moved around, the other users could see his orientation and movement. Furthermore, for OQ users, the movement of hands was also visible for other users, making it possible to communicate through body language to a degree. In terms of oral communication, the OQ and DT have built-in speakers and microphone, making it possible to communicate orally, however, this was not necessary in this study, since all users in the design review sessions were in the same room, making it possible to communicate normally.
During the design review sessions, it was noted that in general the communication and interaction between the participants, especially communication between OQ users, was reduced to simple and concrete expressions, such as the oral conversation between three OQ users in session 1:
OQ1 speech: “Try entering here”
OQ1–3 actions: Move with their controllers
OQ2 action: Turns his head facing upwards
OQ2 speech: “Hold on, that is completely wrong”
OQ2 action: rising his hands upwards
OQ1 and 3 action: turn their head facing upward.
OQ3 speech: “There is also something missing”
OQ1 speech: “OK!, this is really bad”
For an outsider, who was not participating in the VR design review session 1, it is almost impossible to understand what they were communicating. In the first sentence, OQ1 requested the other users to enter a place “here”. For the OQ users, here was not difficult to understand, since it was a simple action of following another user using the controllers. After entering the place referred to, OQ2 detected something when looking upwards. He then pointed by using his controller and expressed that “something” was completely wrong. Both OQ1 and OQ3 reacted, by looking in the direction OQ2 pointed. Both users seemed to easily understand what OQ1 was refereeing to. This led to OQ3 also expressing that something was also missing, which OQ1 and OQ2 seemed to “silently” agree with. Lastly, OQ1 stated that this was bad. The above-mentioned example took place in session 1. The place referred to by OQ1 was the Common Room on Ground Floor, see Figure 1.2. The “that” referred to by OQ2 was a ventilation colliding with a bearing beam, see Figure 1.7 (left). The “something” referred to by OQ3 was a missing suspended ceiling. The “This” referred to a bigger problem including multiple issues that needed attending to by multiple and interdisciplinary actions.
Another example of simple and concrete expressions is during session 7, where three OQ and one DT users were participating. In advance of this particular conversation, the
Figure 1.7 Examples of issue registration in Prospect. (Left) An issue during session 1 of a hard clash between a bearing beam and ventilation. (Right) An issue during session 7 of the floor deck is missing underneath the door.
OQ user in question wandered alone around to a distant place of the model, while the rest of the users were busy registering other issues. During this time the OQ user in question discovered the issue shown in Figure 1.7 (right), in which the floor deck was missing at a specific location. However, at the moment of time, DT user was busy. After a while, the conversation started.
DT speech: “Were was it the floor deck was missing?”
OQ1 speech: “How should I explain …”
OQ1 action: stops and thinks a few seconds
OQ1 speech: “I’ll move to the place in question”
OQ1 action: starts move towards the place in question
DT, OQ2 and OQ3 action: starts to follow OQ1.
For an outsider, who was not participating in the VR design review session 7, it is almost impossible to know where the place in question is located. All the concrete information we get is that the floor deck is missing somewhere in the model, which is a fairly broad demarcation. Even though OQ1 knows of the place in question himself, it is too difficult for him to explain orally. According to Figure 1.1, an explanation through oral communication requires the coding and decoding between the sender (OQ1) and receivers (DT, OQ2 and OQ3) on a more abstract level. However, after some consideration, the OQ1 user decides to move to the place in question. With no opposition, the rest of the group move to the location. Even though, the oral communication happens in the VR environment, the act of explaining it orally still requires high abstraction. On the other hand, by moving to the place in question in VR, the act of delivering information from sender (OQ1) to receivers (DT, OQ2 and OQ3) is reduced to a simple movement, by pressing the joystick, hence the communication is on the lowest level of abstraction.
The two above-mentioned examples were but one of many. Other statement examples are as such; “I’m standing right behind you”, “There’s nothing here”, “That one is too high up”, “We made a mess” and “It doesn’t connect here”. Furthermore, in general lots of body language was observed, such as pointing or waving around to address a single issue or an area with issues and giving direction when guiding another user around in the model.
1.3.4 Survey
After the two-day’s introduction to VR and optional VR-supported design review sessions during the DDD, a survey was conducted. The purpose was to get the students’ individual viewpoint about the multi-user VR-supported design review. A total of 37 respondents completed the questionnaire, whereas 25 of them participated in the design review sessions. Even more so two respondents were present at the VR sessions, but did not participate in the sessions as an OC or DT user. Lastly, ten of the respondents only participated in the two days of introduction to VR. Twenty-two of the respondents have experience in the AEC industry were among them 17 have primary experience within the construction phase. The other 15 of them have no experience prior to their current study, as shown in Figure 1.8. In relation to respondents that participated in the VR sessions, the demography of work experience is somewhat similar to the total. Therefore, even though the respondent in this study are students, many of them still have a significant amount of practical experience to support their viewpoint.
1.3.4.1 Strengths and Drawbacks
The result in this section is based on all 37 respondents. In the survey, the respondents were asked to describe strengths and weaknesses in relation to VR in the AEC industry. The results are coded and summarized in Table 1.3. In general, the strengths are that VR improves the understanding of the project, especially compared to 2D and desktop version of 3D models. For instance, respondent number (RN) 34;
RN 34 states: “It is possible to discover possible errors in buildings, as well as get an understanding of how the building will appear in the real world. There is a big difference from a screen in 3D and then standing in the building in a virtual world”.
Figure 1.8 Amount of work experience by the respondents.
Table 1.3 Shows the strengths and drawbacks of VR appointed by the respondents
Furthermore, VR improves interdisciplinary cooperation and the working processes in general. More specific building contractors, clients, investors and sales departments would particularly benefit from VR. In terms of quality management, the majority of the respondents point out that VR improves design review and quality assurance in especially the designing phase and construction phase. Furthermore, strengths such as model confirmation and solution discussion in the designing phase are also mentioned as well as building instructions in the construction phase.
On the other hand, drawbacks are also mentioned. The most drawbacks described are difficulty with new technology, expensive to implement and lack of skills in the industry. These drawbacks are of a more general in nature and are supported by drawbacks such as time consuming and difficult to setup, resistance of new technology adoption, conservativism in the AEC industry. For instance;
RN 20 “… in order to achieve a proper implementation of VR, it requires a large knowledge base to, which we currently don’t have”.
Following on from that, nine respondents also point out that it is not known whether or not the value of the use of VR is good enough when compared to costs and time consumption.
RN 29 states: “I think it is difficult for companies to know whether it is a good investment, and I also think that the investment and retraining of employees there is the biggest challange”.
In relation to the technology, four respondents point out that a model needs a certain Level of Detail (LOD), for the AEC industry to gain from using VR. Furthermore, four respondents mentioned that VR was inferior to clash detection compared with clash detection algorithms such as in Navisworks.
RS 28 states. “It can be difficult to persuade people to use it when, for example, when you can do clash detection in Navisworks, without the use of VR glasses”.
1.3.4.2
VR versus Traditional Design Review
The result in this section is based on all 37 respondents. When comparing design review carried out in 2D drawings and 3D view with VR, the bar chart in Figure 1.9. speaks quite unambiguously. To a high degree, the respondents either strongly agree or agree, that compared with both traditional 2D drawings and 3D views, VR gave them (1) a better understanding of the project as a whole, (2) more spatial understanding of the project, (3) a better understanding of the interdisciplinary work and (4) a better opportunity to communicate issues.
Although it is worth mentioning that there were significantly more respondents that are neutral or disagreed when it comes to a better understanding of the interdisciplinary work. For instance, compared with 3D view, a total of four respondents (14.8%) disagreed and five respondents (18.5%) are neutral. It is also worth mentioning that in relation to communicating in 3D view versus communicating in VR, for each answer one respondent answered “I don’t know”, “Disagree” and “Neutral”.
1.3.4.3 Value of VR in Design Review Sessions
The result in this section is based on the 27 respondents, who used were presented during the design review sessions. This section investigates the respondents’ own experience on the design review sessions described in Sections 3.1 to 3.3, see also Table 1.1.
The results shown in Figure 1.10 speak quite unambiguously, respondents that participated in design review sessions aider strongly agree or agree, that (1) reviewing the project in general gave them value, (2) a lot of issues were detected when reviewing the model in VR, (3) without VR, they would not detect some issues and (4) reviewing the project with multiple VR users gave them value. In the survey, there were many examples supporting these results such as. In relation to value of VR
RN 12: “We found errors that we couldn’t find in 3D Revit, and as an architect it gave me a better overview”.
Figure 1.9 The degree to which the respondents agree or disagree to the statement listed above the charts.
RN 15: “Being able to stand inside the building yourself gives a better understanding of the entire project, and it is much easier to see and to perform a quality assurance on the building”.
RN 23: “It was great to be able to walk around inside our building. It gave a better understanding of room size, corridor widths, stairs, ceiling height, etc. in 1:1”.
RN 25: “It added value to the project because we could see and discuss things that were not visible in our 2D/3D drawings”.
Respondents also mentioned many examples of issues they would not discover without a VR design review session such as
RN 2: “There were many technical installations that collided. There were building parts that collided or were not connected”.
RN 12: “ we had some ventilation pipes that we had made holes in the walls to implement. - We then moved these ventilation pipes, and it turned out when we performed quality assurance in VR that there was still a hole in the wall”.
RN 14: “ the elevator shaft collided with a ventilation pipe. It would have been difficult to see in 3D”.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
W Lady Molly heard this theory she laughed, and shrugged her pretty shoulders.
“Old Mr. Frewin was dying, was he not, at the time of the burglary?” she said. “Why should his wife, soon to become his widow, take the trouble to go through a laboured and daring comedy of a burglary in order to possess herself of things which would become hers within the next few hours? Even if, after Mr. Frewin’s death, she could not actually dispose of the miniatures, the old man left her a large sum of money and a big income by his will, with which she could help her spendthrift son as much as she pleased.”
This was, of course, why the mystery in this strange case was so deep. At the Yard they did all that they could. Within forty-eight hours they had notices printed in almost every European language, which contained rough sketches of the stolen miniatures hastily supplied by Mrs. Frewin herself. These were sent to as many of the great museums and art collectors abroad as possible, and of course to the principal American cities and to American millionaires. There is no doubt that the thief would find it very difficult to dispose of the miniatures, and until he could sell them his booty would, of course, not benefit him in any way. Works of art cannot be tampered with, or melted down or taken to pieces, like silver or jewellery, and, so far as could be ascertained, the thief did not appear to make the slightest attempt to dispose of the booty, and the mystery became more dark, more impenetrable than ever.
“Will you undertake the job?” said the chief one day to Lady Molly.
“Yes,” she replied, “on two distinct conditions.”
“What are they?”
“That you will not bother me with useless questions, and that you will send out fresh notices to all the museums and art collectors you can think of, and request them to let you know of any art purchases they may have made within the last two years.”
“The last two years!” ejaculated the chief, “why, the miniatures were only stolen three months ago.”
“Did I not say that you were not to ask me useless questions?”
This to the chief, mind you; and he only smiled, whilst I nearly fell backwards at her daring. But he did send out the notices, and it was generally understood that Lady Molly now had charge of the case.
I was about seven weeks later when, one morning, I found her at breakfast looking wonderfully bright and excited.
“The Yard has had sheaves of replies, Mary,” she said gaily, “and the chief still thinks I am a complete fool.”
“Why, what has happened?”
“Only this, that the art museum at Budapest has now in its possession a set of eight miniatures by Engleheart; but the authorities did not think that the first notices from Scotland Yard could possibly refer to these, as they had been purchased from a private source a little over two years ago.”
“But two years ago the Frewin miniatures were still at Blatchley House, and Mr. Frewin was fingering them daily,” I said, not understanding, and wondering what she was driving at.
“I know that,” she said gaily, “so does the chief. That is why he thinks that I am a first-class idiot.”
“But what do you wish to do now?”
“Go to Brighton, Mary, take you with me and try to elucidate the mystery of the Frewin miniatures.”
“I don’t understand,” I gasped, bewildered.
“No, and you won’t until we get there,” she replied, running up to me and kissing me in her pretty, engaging way.
That same afternoon we went to Brighton and took up our abode at the Hotel Metropole. Now you know I always believed from the very first that she was a born lady and all the rest of it, but even I was taken aback at the number of acquaintances and smart friends she had all over the place. It was “Hello, Lady Molly! whoever would have thought of meeting you here?” and “Upon my word! this is good luck,” all the time.
She smiled and chatted gaily with all the folk as if she had known them all her life, but I could easily see that none of these people knew that she had anything to do with the Yard.
Brighton is not such a very big place as one would suppose, and most of the fashionable residents of the gay city find their way
sooner or later to the luxurious dining-room of the Hotel Metropole, if only for a quiet little dinner given when the cook is out. Therefore I was not a little surprised when, one evening, about a week after our arrival and just as we were sitting down to the table d’hôte dinner, Lady Molly suddenly placed one of her delicate hands on my arm.
“Look behind you, a little to your left, Mary, but not just this minute. When you do you will see two ladies and two gentlemen sitting at a small table quite close to us. They are Sir Michael and Lady Steyne, the Honourable Mrs. Frewin in deep black, and her son, Mr. Lionel Frewin.”
I looked round as soon as I could, and gazed with some interest at the hero and heroine of the Blatchley House drama. We had a quiet little dinner, and Lady Molly having all of a sudden become very silent and self-possessed, altogether different from her gay, excited self of the past few days, I scented that something important was in the air, and tried to look as unconcerned as my lady herself. After dinner we ordered coffee, and as Lady Molly strolled through into the lounge, I noticed that she ordered our tray to be placed at a table which was in very close proximity to one already occupied by Lady Steyne and her party.
Lady Steyne, I noticed, gave Lady Molly a pleasant nod when we first came in, and Sir Michael got up and bowed, saying “How d’ye do?” We sat down and began a desultory conversation together. Soon, as usual, we were joined by various friends and acquaintances who all congregated round our table and set themselves to entertaining us right pleasantly. Presently the conversation drifted to art matters, Sir Anthony Truscott being there, who is, as you know, one of the keepers of the Art Department at South Kensington Museum.
“I am crazy about miniatures just now,” said Lady Molly in response to a remark from Sir Anthony.
I tried not to look astonished.
“And Miss Granard and I,” continued my lady, quite unblushingly, “have been travelling all over the Continent in order to try and secure some rare specimens.”
“Indeed,” said Sir Anthony. “Have you found anything very wonderful?”
“We certainly have discovered some rare works of art,” replied Lady Molly, “have we not, Mary? Now the two Englehearts we bought at Budapest are undoubtedly quite unique.”
“Engleheart—and at Budapest!” remarked Sir Anthony. “I thought I knew the collections at most of the great Continental cities, but I certainly have no recollection of such treasures in the Hungarian capital.”
“Oh, they were only purchased two years ago, and have only been shown to the public recently,” remarked Lady Molly. “There was originally a set of eight, so the comptroller, Mr Pulszky, informed me. He bought them from an English collector whose name I have now forgotten, and he is very proud of them, but they cost the country a great deal more money than it could afford, and in order somewhat to recoup himself Mr. Pulszky sold two out of the eight at, I must say, a very stiff price.”
While she was talking I could not help noticing the strange glitter in her eyes. Then a curious smothered sound broke upon my ear. I turned and saw Mrs. Frewin looking with glowing and dilated eyes at the charming picture presented by Lady Molly.
“I should like to show you my purchases,” said the latter to Sir Anthony. “One or two foreign connoisseurs have seen the two miniatures and declare them to be the finest in existence. Mary,” she added, turning to me, “would you be so kind as to run up to my room and get me the small sealed packet which is at the bottom of my dressing-case? Here are the keys.”
A little bewildered, yet guessing by her manner that I had a part to play, I took the keys from her and went up to her room. In her dressing-case I certainly found a small, square, flat packet, and with that in my hand I prepared to go downstairs again. I had just locked the bedroom door when I was suddenly confronted by a tall, graceful woman dressed in deep black, whom I at once recognised as the Honourable Mrs. Frewin.
“You are Miss Granard?” she said quickly and excitedly; her voice was tremulous and she seemed a prey to the greatest possible excitement. Without waiting for my reply she continued eagerly:
“Miss Granard, there is no time to be more explicit, but I give you my word, the word of a very wretched, heart-broken woman, that my
very life depends upon my catching a glimpse of the contents of the parcel that you now have in your hand.”
“But——” I murmured, hopelessly bewildered.
“There is no ‘but,’ ” she replied. “It is a matter of life and death. Here are £200, Miss Granard, if you will let me handle that packet,” and with trembling hands she drew a bundle of bank-notes from her reticule.
I hesitated, not because I had any notion of acceding to Mrs. Frewin’s request, but because I did not quite know how I ought to act at this strange juncture, when a pleasant, mellow voice broke in suddenly:
“You may take the money, Mary, if you wish. You have my permission to hand the packet over to this lady,” and Lady Molly, charming, graceful and elegant in her beautiful directoire gown, stood smiling some few feet away, with Hankin just visible in the gloom of the corridor.
She advanced towards us, took the small packet from my hands, and held it out towards Mrs. Frewin.
“Will you open it?” she said, “or shall I?”
Mrs. Frewin did not move. She stood as if turned to stone. Then with dexterous fingers my lady broke the seals of the packet and drew from it a few sheets of plain white cardboard and a thin piece of match-boarding.
“There!” said Lady Molly, fingering the bits of cardboard while she kept her fine large eyes fixed on Mrs. Frewin; “£200 is a big price to pay for a sight of these worthless things.”
“Then this was a vulgar trick,” said Mrs. Frewin, drawing herself up with an air which did not affect Lady Molly in the least.
“A trick, certainly,” she replied with her winning smile, “vulgar, if you will call it so—pleasant to us all, Mrs. Frewin, since you so readily fell into it.”
“Well, and what are you going to do next?”
“Report the matter to my chief,” said Lady Molly, quietly “We have all been very severely blamed for not discovering sooner the truth about the disappearance of the Frewin miniatures.”
“You don’t know the truth now,” retorted Mrs. Frewin.
“Oh, yes, I do,” replied Lady Molly, still smiling. “I know that two years ago your son, Mr. Lionel Frewin, was in terrible monetary difficulties. There was something unavowable, which he dared not tell his father. You had to set to work to find money somehow. You had no capital at your own disposal, and you wished to save your son from the terrible consequences of his own folly. It was soon after M. de Colinville’s visit. Your husband had had his first apoplectic seizure; his mind and eyesight were somewhat impaired. You are a clever artist yourself, and you schemed out a plan whereby you carefully copied the priceless miniatures and then entrusted them to your son for sale to the Art Museum at Budapest, where there was but little likelihood of their being seen by anyone who knew they had belonged to your husband. English people do not stay more than one night there, at the Hotel Hungaria. Your copies were works of art in themselves, and you had no difficulty in deceiving your husband in the state of mind he then was, but when he lay dying you realised that his will would inevitably be proved, wherein he bequeathed the miniatures to Mr. James Hyam, and that these would have to be valued for probate. Frightened now that the substitution would be discovered, you devised the clever comedy of the burglary at Blatchley, which, in the circumstances, could never be brought home to you or your son. I don’t know where you subsequently concealed the spurious Engleheart miniatures which you calmly took out of the library and hid away during the night of your husband’s death, but no doubt our men will find that out,” she added quietly, “now that they are on the track.”
With a frightened shriek Mrs. Frewin turned as if she would fly, but Lady Molly was too quick for her, and barred the way. Then, with that wonderful charm of manner and that innate kindliness which always characterised her, she took hold of the unfortunate woman’s wrist.
“Let me give you a word of advice,” she said gently. “We at the Yard will be quite content with a confession from you, which will clear us of negligence and satisfy us that the crime has been brought home to its perpetrator. After that try and enter into an arrangement with your husband’s legatee, Mr. James Hyam. Make a clean breast of the whole thing to him and offer him full monetary compensation. For the sake of the family he won’t refuse. He would have nothing to
gain by bruiting the whole thing abroad; and for his own sake and that of his late uncle, who was so good to him, I don’t think you would find him hard to deal with.”
Mrs. Frewin paused awhile, undecided and still defiant. Then her attitude softened; she turned and looked full at the beautiful, kind eyes turned eagerly up to hers, and pressing Lady Molly’s tiny hand in both her own she whispered:
“I will take your advice. God bless you.”
She was gone, and Lady Molly called Hankin to her side.
“Until we have that confession, Hankin,” she said, with the quiet manner she always adopted where matters connected with her work were concerned, “Mum’s the word.”
“Ay, and after that, too, my lady,” replied Hankin, earnestly.
You see, she could do anything she liked with the men, and I, of course, was her slave.
Now we have got the confession, Mrs. Frewin is on the best of terms with Mr. James Hyam, who has behaved very well about the whole thing, and the public has forgotten all about the mystery of the Frewin miniatures.
III.
THE IRISH-TWEED COAT
I all began with the murder of Mr. Andrew Carrthwaite, at Palermo. He had been found dead in the garden of his villa just outside the town, with a stiletto between his shoulder blades and a piece of rough Irish tweed, obviously torn from his assailant’s coat, clutched tightly in his hand.
All that was known of Mr. Carrthwaite over here was that he was a Yorkshireman, owner of some marble works in Sicily, a man who employed a great many hands; and that, unlike most employers of labour over there, he had a perfect horror of the many secret societies and Socialist clubs which abound in that part of the world. He would not become a slave to the ever-growing tyranny of the Mafia and its kindred associations, and therefore he made it a hard and fast rule that no workman employed by him, from the foremost to the meanest hand, should belong to any society, club, or trade union of any sort or kind.
At first, robbery was thought to have been the sole object of the crime, for Mr. Carrthwaite’s gold watch, marked with his initials “A. C.,” and his chain were missing, but the Sicilian police were soon inclined to the belief that this was merely a blind, and that personal spite and revenge were at the bottom of that dastardly outrage.
One clue, remember, had remained in the possession of the authorities. This was the piece of rough Irish tweed, found in the murdered man’s hand.
Within twenty-four hours a dozen witnesses were prepared to swear that that fragment of cloth was part of a coat habitually worn by Mr. Carrthwaite’s English overseer, Mr. Cecil Shuttleworth. It appears that this young man had lately, in defiance of the rigid rules prescribed by his employer, joined a local society—semi-social, semi-religious—which came under the ban of the old Yorkshireman’s prejudices.
Apparently there had been several bitter quarrels between Mr Carrthwaite and young Shuttleworth, culminating in one tempestuous scene, witnessed by the former’s servants at his villa; and although these people did not understand the actual words that passed between the two Englishmen, it was pretty clear that they amounted to an ultimatum on the one side and defiance on the other. The dismissal of the overseer followed immediately, and that same evening Mr. Carrthwaite was found murdered in his garden.
Mind you—according to English ideas—the preliminary investigations in that mysterious crime were hurried through in a manner which we should think unfair to the accused. It seemed from the first as if the Sicilian police had wilfully made up their minds that Shuttleworth was guilty. For instance, although
“He had been found dead in the garden of his villa”
so many people were prepared to swear that the young English overseer had often worn a coat of which the piece found in the murdered man’s hand was undoubtedly a torn fragment, yet the coat itself was not found among his effects, neither were his late master’s watch and chain.
Nevertheless, the young man was arrested within a few hours of the murder, and—after the formalities of the preliminary “instruction”—was duly committed to stand his trial on the capital charge.
It was about this time that I severed my official connection with the Yard. Lady Molly now employed me as her private secretary, and I was working with her one day in the study of our snug little flat in Maida Vale, when our trim servant came in to us with a card and a letter on a salver.
Lady Molly glanced at the card, then handed it across to me. It bore the name: Mr. Jeremiah Shuttleworth.
The letter was from the chief.
“Not much in it,” she commented, glancing rapidly at its contents. “The chief only says, ‘This is the father of the man who is charged with the Palermo murder. As obstinate as a mule, but you have my permission to do what he wants.’ Emily, show the gentleman in,” she added.
The next moment a short, thick-set man entered our little study. He had sandy hair and a freckled skin; there was a great look of determination in the square face and a fund of dogged obstinacy in the broad, somewhat heavy jaw. In response to Lady Molly’s invitation he sat down and began with extraordinary abruptness:
“I suppose you know what I have come about—er—miss?” he suggested.
“Well!” she replied, holding up his own card, “I can guess.”
“My son, miss—I mean ma’am,” he said in a husky voice. “He is innocent. I swear it by the living——”
He checked himself, obviously ashamed of this outburst; then he resumed more calmly.
“Of course, there’s the business about the coat, and that coat did belong to my son, but——”
“Well, yes?” asked Lady Molly, for he had paused again, as if waiting to be encouraged in his narrative, “what about that coat?”
“It has been found in London, miss,” he replied quietly. “The fiendish brutes who committed the crime thought out this monstrous way of diverting attention from themselves by getting hold of my son’s coat and making the actual assassin wear it, in case he was espied in the gloom.”
There was silence in the little study for awhile. I was amazed, aghast at the suggestion put forward by that rough northcountryman, that sorely stricken father who spoke with curious intensity of language and of feeling. Lady Molly was the first to break the solemn silence.
“What makes you think, Mr. Shuttleworth, that the assassination of Mr. Carrthwaite was the work of a gang of murderers?” she asked.
“I know Sicily,” he replied simply. “My boy’s mother was a native of Messina. The place is riddled with secret societies, murdering, anarchical clubs: organisations against which Mr. Carrthwaite waged deadly warfare. It is one of these—the Mafia, probably—that decreed that Mr Carrthwaite should be done away with. They could not do with such a powerful and hard-headed enemy.”
“You may be right, Mr. Shuttleworth, but tell me more about the coat.”
“Well, that’ll be damning proof against the blackguards, anyway. I am on the eve of a second marriage, miss—ma’am,” continued the man with seeming irrelevance. “The lady is a widow. Mrs. Tadworth is her name—but her father was an Italian named Badeni, a connection of my first wife’s, and that’s how I came to know him and his daughter. You know Leather Lane, don’t you? It might be in Italy, for Italian’s the only language one hears about there. Badeni owned a house in Bread Street, Leather Lane, and let lodgings to his fellowcountrymen there; this business my future wife still carries on. About a week ago two men arrived at the house, father and son, so they said, who wanted a cheap bedroom; all their meals, including breakfast, they would take outside, and would be out, moreover, most of the day.
“It seems that they had often lodged at Badeni’s before—the old reprobate no doubt was one of their gang—and when they
understood that Mrs. Tadworth was their former friend’s daughter they were quite satisfied.
“They gave their name as Piatti, and told Mrs. Tadworth that they came from Turin. But I happened to hear them talking on the stairs, and I knew that they were Sicilians, both of them.
“You may well imagine that just now everything hailing from Sicily is of vital importance to me, and somehow I suspected those two men from the very first. Mrs. Tadworth is quite at one with me in wanting to move heaven and earth to prove the innocence of my boy She watched those people for me as a cat would watch a mouse. The older man professed to be very fond of gardening, and presently he obtained Mrs. Tadworth’s permission to busy himself in the little strip of barren ground at the back of the house. This she told me last night whilst we were having supper together in her little parlour. Somehow I seemed to get an inspiration like. The Piattis had gone out together as usual for their evening meal. I got a spade and went out into the strip of garden. I worked for about an hour, and then my heart gave one big leap—my spade had met a certain curious, soft resistance—the next moment I was working away with hands and nails, and soon unearthed a coat—the coat, miss,” he continued, unable now to control his excitement, “with the bit torn out of the back, and in the pocket the watch and chain belonging to the murdered man, for they bear the initials ‘A. C.’ The fiendish brutes! I knew it—I knew it, and now I can prove the innocence of my boy!”
Again there was a pause. I was too much absorbed in the palpitating narrative to attempt to breathe a word, and I knew that Lady Molly was placidly waiting until the man had somewhat recovered from his vehement outburst.
“Of course, you can prove your boy’s innocence now,” she said, smiling encouragingly into his flushed face. “But what have you done with the coat?”
“Left it buried where I found it,” he replied more calmly. “They must not suspect that I am on their track.”
She nodded approvingly.
“No doubt, then, my chief has told you that the best course to pursue now will be to place the whole matter in the hands of the English police. Our people at Scotland Yard will then immediately
communicate with the Sicilian authorities, and in the meanwhile we can keep the two men in Leather Lane well under surveillance.”
“Yes, he told me all that,” said Mr. Shuttleworth, quietly.
“Well?”
“And I told him that his ‘communicating with the Sicilian police authorities’ would result in my boy’s trial being summarily concluded, in his being sent to the gallows, whilst every proof of his innocence would be destroyed, or, at any rate, kept back until too late.”
“You are mad, Mr. Shuttleworth!” she ejaculated.
“Maybe I am,” he rejoined quietly “You see, you do not know Sicily, and I do. You do not know its many clubs and bands of assassins, beside whom the so-called Russian Nihilists are simple, blundering children. The Mafia, which is the parent of all such murderous organisations, has members and agents in every town, village, and hamlet in Italy, in every post-office and barracks, in every trade and profession from the highest to the lowest in the land. The Sicilian police force is infested with it, so are the Italian customs. I would not trust either with what means my boy’s life and more to me.”
“But——”
“The police would suppress the evidence connected with the proofs which I hold. At the frontier the coat, the watch and chain would disappear; of that I am as convinced as that I am a living man ——”
Lady Molly made no comment. She was meditating. That there was truth in what the man said, no one could deny.
The few details which we had gleaned over here of the hurried investigations, the summary commitment for trial of the accused, the hasty dismissal of all evidence in his favour, proved that, at any rate, the father’s anxiety was well founded.
“But, then, what in the world do you propose to
“‘Well,’ said Lady Molly, ‘ … what is it that you want us to do in the matter?’”
do?” said Lady Molly after a while. “Do you want to take the proofs over yourself to your boy’s advocate? Is that it?”
“No, that would be no good,” he replied simply. “I am known in Sicily. I should be watched, probably murdered, too, and my death would not benefit my boy.”
“But what then?”
“My boy’s uncle is chief officer of police at Cividale, on the AustroItalian frontier. I know that I can rely on his devotion. Mrs. Tadworth, whose interest in my boy is almost equal to my own, and whose connection with me cannot possibly be known out there, will take the proofs of my boy’s innocence to him. He will know what to do and how to reach my son’s advocate safely, which no one else could guarantee to do.”
“Well,” said Lady Molly, “that being so, what is it that you want us to do in the matter?”
“I want a lady’s help, miss—er—ma’am,” he replied, “someone who is able, willing, strong, and, if possible, enthusiastic, to accompany Mrs. Tadworth—perhaps in the capacity of a maid—just to avert the usual suspicious glances thrown at a lady travelling alone. Also the question of foreign languages comes in. The gentleman I saw at Scotland Yard said that if you cared to go he would give you a fortnight’s leave of absence.”
“Yes, I’ll go!” rejoined Lady Molly, simply
W sat in the study a long while after that—Mr. Shuttleworth, Lady Molly and I—discussing the plans of the exciting journey; for I, too, as you will see, was destined to play my small part in this drama which had the life or death of an innocent man for its dénouement.
I don’t think I need bore you with an account of our discussion; all, I think, that will interest you is the plan of campaign we finally decided upon.
There seemed to be no doubt that Mr. Shuttleworth had succeeded so far in not arousing the suspicions of the Piattis. Therefore, that night, when they were safely out of the way, Mr. Shuttleworth would once more unearth the coat, and watch and chain, and then bury a coat quite similar in colour and texture in that same hole in the ground; this might perhaps serve to put the miscreants off their guard, if by any chance one of them should busy himself again in the garden.
After that Mrs. Tadworth would hide about her the proofs of young Shuttleworth’s innocence and join Lady Molly at our flat in Maida Vale, where she would spend the night preparatory to the two ladies leaving London for abroad, the following morning, by the 9.0 a.m. train from Charing Cross en route for Vienna, Budapest, and finally Cividale.
But our scheme was even more comprehensive than that, and herein lay my own little share in it, of which I will tell you presently.
The same evening at half-past nine Mrs. Tadworth arrived at the flat with the coat, and watch and chain, which were to be placed in the hands of Colonel Grassi, the chief police officer at Cividale.
I took a keen look at the lady, you may be sure of that. It was a pretty little face enough, and she herself could not have been much more than seven or eight and twenty, but to me the whole appearance and manner of the woman suggested weakness of character, rather than that devotion on which poor Mr Shuttleworth so implicitly relied.
I suppose that it was on that account that I felt unaccountably down-hearted and anxious when I bade farewell to my own dear lady —a feeling in which she obviously did not share. Then I began to enact the rôle which had been assigned to me.
I dressed up in Mrs. Tadworth’s clothes—we were about the same height—and putting on her hat and closely fitting veil, I set out for Leather Lane. For as many hours as I could possibly contrive to keep up the deception, I was to impersonate Mrs. Tadworth in her own house.
As I dare say you have guessed by now, that lady was not in affluent circumstances, and the house in a small by-street off Leather Lane did not boast of a staff of servants. In fact, Mrs. Tadworth did all the domestic work herself, with the help of a charwoman for a couple of hours in the mornings.
That charwoman had, in accordance with Lady Molly’s plan, been given a week’s wages in lieu of notice. I—as Mrs. Tadworth—would be supposed the next day to be confined to my room with a cold, and Emily—our own little maid, a bright girl, who would go through fire and water for Lady Molly or for me—would represent a new charwoman.
As soon as anything occurred to arouse my suspicions that our secret had been discovered, I was to wire to Lady Molly at the various points which she gave me.
Thus provided with an important and comprehensive part, I duly installed myself at Bread Street, Leather Lane. Emily—who had been told just enough of the story, and no more, to make her eager, excited and satisfied—entered into the spirit of her rôle as eagerly as I did myself.
That first night was quite uneventful. The Piattis came home some time after eleven and went straight up to their room.
Emily, looking as like a bedraggled charwoman as her trim figure would allow, was in the hall the next morning when the two men started off for breakfast. She told me afterwards that the younger one looked at her very keenly, and asked her why the other servant had gone. Emily replied with due and proper vagueness, whereupon the Sicilians said no more and went out together.
That was a long and wearisome day which I spent cooped up in the tiny, stuffy parlour, ceaselessly watching the tiny patch of ground at the back, devoured with anxiety, following the travellers in my mind on their way across Europe.
Towards midday one of the Piattis came home and presently strolled out into the garden. Evidently the change of servants had aroused his suspicions, for I could see him feeling about the earth with his spade and looking up now and again towards the window of the parlour, whereat I contrived to show him the form of a pseudo Mrs. Tadworth moving about the room.
Mr. Shuttleworth and I were having supper in that same back parlour at about nine o’clock on that memorable evening, when we suddenly heard the front door being opened with a latchkey, and then very cautiously shut again.
One of the two men had returned at an hour most unusual for their otherwise very regular habits. The way, too, in which the door had been opened and shut suggested a desire for secrecy and silence. Instinctively I turned off the gas in the parlour, and with a quick gesture pointed to the front room, the door of which stood open, and I whispered hurriedly to Mr. Shuttleworth.
“Speak to him!”
Fortunately, the great aim which he had in view had rendered his perceptions very keen.
He went into the front room, in which the gas, fortunately, was alight at the time, and opening the door which gave thence on to the passage, he said pleasantly:
“Oh, Mr. Piatti! is that you? Can I do anything for you?”
“Ah, yes! zank you,” replied the Sicilian, whose voice I could hear was husky and unsteady, “if you would be so kind—I—I feel so fainting and queer to-night—ze warm weazer, I zink. Would you— would you be so kind to fetch me a little—er—ammoniac—er—sal volatile you call it, I zink—from ze apothecary? I would go lie on my bed—if you would be so kind——”
“Why, of course I will, Mr. Piatti,” said Mr. Shuttleworth, who somehow got an intuition of what I wanted to do, and literally played into my hands. “I’ll go at once.”
He went to get his hat from the rack in the hall whilst the Sicilian murmured profuse “Zank you’s,” and then I heard the front door bang to.
From where I was I could not see Piatti, but I imagined him standing in the dimly-lighted passage listening to Mr. Shuttleworth’s retreating footsteps.
Presently I heard him walking along towards the back door, and soon I perceived something moving about in the little bit of ground beyond. He had gone to get his spade. He meant to unearth the coat and the watch and chain which, for some reason or another, he must have thought were no longer safe in their original hiding-place. Had the gang of murderers heard that the man who frequently visited their landlady was the father of Cecil Shuttleworth over at Palermo?
At that moment I paused neither to speculate nor yet to plan. I ran down to the kitchen, for I no longer wanted to watch Piatti. I knew what he was doing.
I didn’t want to frighten Emily, and she had been made to understand all along that she might have to leave the house with me again at any time, at a moment’s notice; she and I had kept our small handbag ready packed in the kitchen, whence we could reach the area steps quickly and easily.
Now I quietly beckoned to her that the time had come. She took the bag and followed me. Just as we shut the area gate behind us, we heard the garden door violently slammed. Piatti had got the coat, and by now was examining the pockets in order to find the watch and chain. Within the next ten seconds he would realise that the coat which he held was not the one which he had buried in the garden, and that the real proofs of his guilt—or his complicity in the guilt of another—had disappeared.
We did not wait for those ten seconds, but flew down Bread Street, in the direction of Leather Lane, where I knew Mr. Shuttleworth would be on the lookout for me.
“Yes,” I said hurriedly, directly I spied him at the angle of the street; “it’s all up. I am off to Budapest by the early Continental to-morrow morning. I shall catch them at the Hungaria. See Emily safely to the flat.”
