John Doughty had long served as Small’s secretary. He removed $105,000 in Victory Bonds from a safety-deposit box and fled under an alias. The bonds were recovered, and he was convicted of theft.

Doughty’s theft occurred on the day Small vanished. That coincidence is powerful circumstantial context but does not prove abduction, murder or coordination.

Authorities investigated kidnapping and conspiracy possibilities but lacked evidence to establish that Small had been abducted or that Doughty had caused his disappearance.

It proves dishonest appropriation of securities and flight. It does not identify Small’s location, explain the absence of a body or establish that Doughty ever encountered Small after the lawyer left.

Because Theresa initially expected Ambrose to return, police lost the earliest opportunity to confirm movements, preserve spaces, question witnesses while memory was fresh and alert transportation hubs.

A moustached middle-aged man in a hat and overcoat was not a uniquely identifiable figure in 1919. Publicity produced numerous sincere mistakes and opportunistic claims.

Toronto police, provincial authorities, banks, rail lines, private detectives and distant agencies did not operate through a unified digital system. Information moved by telephone, telegraph, circular and newspaper.

Without a body or reliable death evidence, investigators could not assume homicide, and prosecution theories faced the threshold problem of proving that Small was dead.

Theresa received the estate under the will. Financial benefit is real, but the sale and marriage had long been financially intertwined, and investigators did not prove a murder arrangement.

Doughty had a powerful reason to prevent rapid discovery of the missing securities. The unresolved question is whether Small’s disappearance was necessary to the theft or merely coincidental to it.

Small’s tactics and personality created grievances. No named rival was tied to a disappearance event through reliable witness, payment, travel or physical evidence.

Affairs created possible aggrieved partners and spouses, but the published record does not establish a specific offender, confrontation or disposal route.

A theatre man understood disguise, travel and performance. Yet leaving the deposited fortune and leaving no verified later financial trace make simple flight difficult to sustain.

An unrecognized accident or suicide could explain the absence of a perpetrator, but no body, location, note or precursor behaviour was established.

No reliable witness or trace establishes Small’s movement after the afternoon meeting.

Some reports place him outside the Grand, but uncertainty about timing and identification prevents a secure extension of the timeline.

His conduct was criminal and suspicious, but no surviving proof connects him to Small’s body or disappearance.

The absence weakens a conventional kidnapping theory but does not exclude a failed abduction or murder.

Possible in 1919, but no verified financial, travel, correspondence or death record has established it.

Furnace and chemical-disposal claims remain narrative solutions without tested remains or a documented transport chain.

It funded a massive search while attracting false claims, sectarian conflict, private detectives and press distortion.

Attorney General files, OPP records, court materials, newspaper archives, Flock papers and estate documents can still refine chronology and source reliability.