I was recently watching the interesting documentary Being Poirot and was reminded of the very strange decision that the series which starred David Suchet made in their version of Murder on the Orient Express to cast Poirot as deeply angry at the killers and appalled by their lack of respect for the law which had failed to punish the murder of young Daisy Armstrong. What perplexes me is that this agrees neither with the book nor with Poirot’s general style.

In the book, Poirot propounds two solutions. The first is that Mr. Rachett was killed by an assassin who boarded the train, killed him an hour earlier than everyone thought because of an explanation having to do with clocks not having been changed for the time zone, and then who got off before the train got stuck in the snow.

After Poirot propounds this theory and explains away various objections that people have, Dr. Constantine objects.

Then everyone jumped as Dr. Constantine suddenly hit the table a blow with his fist.

“But no,” he said. “No, no, and again no! That is an explanation that will nto hold water. It is deficient in a dozen minor points. The crime was not committed so—M. Poirot must know that perfectly well.”

Poirot turned a curious glance on him.

“I see,” he said, “that I shall have to give my second solution. But do not abandon this one too abruptly. You may agree with it later.”

Then, after Poirot reveals the real solution, he gives it to M. Buoc, a director of the Wagon-Lit company, and Dr. Constantine, to decide which is the right solution.

Poirot looked at his friend.

“You are a director of the company, M. Buoc,” he said, “What do you say?”

M. Buoc cleared his throat.

“In my opinion, M. Poirot,” he said, “the first theory you put forward was the correct one—decidedly so. I suggest that that is the solution we offer to the Yugo-Slavian police when they arrive. You agree, Doctor?”

“Certainly I agree,” said Dr. Constantine. “As regards the medical evidence, I think—er—that I made one or two fantastic suggestions.”

“Then,” said Poirot, “having placed my solution before you, I have the honor to retire from the case…”

Does that sound like Poirot being deeply conflicted? It certainly doesn’t sound like that to me.

I do not understand the weird obsession that many TV writers have with trying to turn detectives into Javert from Les Miserables, obsessed with the law over justice. Even weirder, David Suchet suggested that for Poirot this was a conflict between his Catholic faith and his idea of what was right. But the Catholic faith, while it places a very high value on obedience to legitimate authority, does not hold civil law to be identical with justice, or that civil law is the highest good, or that the only right to justice in all cases  belongs exclusively to civil law, or that civil law must always and everywhere be maximally cooperated with, or anything necessary for this to be a fight between Poirot’s Catholic faith and his morals.

To be fair to him, David Suchet, though Christian, is not Catholic, so it is understandable if he is not sufficiently familiar with Catholic moral philosophy. Still, I can’t help but wonder where he got this idea. from.

It certainly wasn’t from the book.

Also, this was not the first time that Poirot decided that the blunt instrument of the police would do more harm than good if they knew all that he knew. He even made that decision while he was still on the Belgian police force (in The Chocolate Box, published in 1923, more than 10 years before Murder on the Orient Express).