MovieChat Forums > Murder She Said (1962) Discussion > Plot holes, inconsistencies, odd behavio...

Plot holes, inconsistencies, odd behavior etc. *spoilers*


Maybe it is just me, but do the ongoings in the movie make any sense to anyone?

- Why would the doctor drop his dead wife in precisely the house which he hopes to win eventually by her death? She and her marital problems have no direct connection to that house, and he is artificially underlining the connection by putting her there.

- Why kill her in a train? That is most risky. Anyone might pass by on the aisle anytime. People in the neighboring compartments might hear something.

-Can you even open a train window that wide that you can throw a body through it?

- Why would he put her in a sarcophagus, inside the garden? She would start to smell eventually, it is impossible that no one would notice her. How is it even possible that the dog does not react to her presence? There is ample empty space outside the garden, why not simply bury her there where he would not be in danger to be observed by the gardener or the boy? Why not kill her anywhere else in the first place?

- Why did the boy leave such a chaos when he searched her room to steal the device?

- How come that the family does not react emotionally in any way to the death of two brothers? Their behavior does not change even the slightest bit after their death. It is like nothing happened. No fear, no joy, no grief. They do not even reminisce about the dead.

- Why did the doctor to kill other people that hastily? Obviously such a killing spree has to attract quite some attention by the police and the public, while reducing the number of suspects for the first murder at the same time. Poisoning could be done in a much more discrete way.

- How did Miss Marple ever conclude that the dead woman was the doctor's wife? There are plenty other possible explanations for the ongoings, even if you decide that the doctor is the murderer; how the heck did she guess the right one? For the reasons stated above, this one does not even make much sense.

- How can the doctor possibly hope to get away with just another murder (Miss Marple) by simply explaining it away as a heart attack? Another dead in that house has to provoke a most exhaustive investigation, and in that last case he would be the most natural suspect. In particular as Miss Marple mentions explicitly that the boy knows that the doctor is visiting her. He would have to admit right away that she died in his presence.

reply


Do you know I agree whole heartedly with you, but have just watched this film and enjoyed it, though missed a quarter of it. As for the doctor? I guessed it was him, only because being a doctor he thought he knew how to commit the perfect crime, but he did`nt. Also you are ao right about no signs of real emmotions,shame really....
Nice to have seen Joan Hickson who went on to become the next Miss Marple :)

reply

Here's a couple of responses to some of your points, which may make some sense (I'm not saying I'm definitely correct but it provides some explanation):-

The doctor wants the body of his wife to be found in the grounds of Ackenthorpe Hall because he wants everyone to think that the body is of Martine, the French woman that Edmund (one of the Ackenthorpe brothers) was supposedly married to. Edmund was killed during the Second World War and it was known that he was romantically involved with a woman named Martine. The doctor wrote a fake letter to Emma, one of Edmund's sisters, in the guise of Martine which made out that she married Edmund shortly before he died. The letter adds that she (Martine) is planning to visit Ackenthorpe Hall. Therefore, the death of "Martine" would make everyone think that she was killed to stop her claiming any of the inheritance that Edmund would have received.

Remember also that the doctor was having a discreet affair with Emma and he had kept the fact that he was married a secret. No one would know that the body was of his wife; they would think it was Martine and that was what he wanted everyone to think (none of the family had ever met the real Martine).

The murder on the train could have been done in a private sleeping compartment, which would have had a lock on the door.

The family does not react emotionally to the deaths of Harold or Albert because they basically don't really like each other. It is mentioned earlier in the film that none of them really get on and are not a close family.

The doctor planned to marry Emma and thus gain access to her share of the inheritance. He presumably killed two of her brothers so that her share would greatly increase. The killer was suspected to be one of the family so the doctor probably thought he was not under suspicion. There was still Cedric, Emma and their brother-in-law Brian Eastley who were still suspected. Maybe even Hillman the gardener too.

I think Miss Marple largely suspected the doctor because of the arsenic poisoning that killed Albert. Everyone suffered a small level of arsenic poisoning but only enough to give them stomach ache. Being a man of medicine, the doctor would presumably know how much to give just to cause a stomach ache. He treated everyone but when it came to treating Albert, he gave him an additional dose that was enough to kill him (with Albert feeling ill the doctor would have an excuse to administer to him). Miss Marple probably concluded that whoever did the poisoning had to have some medical knowledge.

reply

Too much analysis.....just sit back and enjoy Maggie Rutherfords Ms Marple.

reply

Too much analysis.....just sit back and enjoy Maggie Rutherfords Ms Marple.


Analysis of clues is rather the point of murder mysteries, isn't it?

Most of the OP's questions were ably answered already, but I did wonder why Alexander made it so obvious that Miss Marple's room had been ransacked. Perhaps he was enjoying the excitement of the murder investigation and wanted to keep things stirred up. That would be a very Agatha Christie thing for him to do.

As for how Miss Marple figured out it was the doctor: I agree, it was probably the arsenic. Her process of deduction was not nearly as well explained as it is in the books or in most adaptations of Christie's work, which is too bad. Otherwise, it's a charming film, although - as many others have said - it must be taken as an independent work rather than an adaptation of the novel, since Margaret Rutherford, while marvelous, is nothing like Christie's Marple.

reply

Essex-yes,I agree-but the OP went over board

reply

One radical departure from the book (4:50 From Paddington, also known as What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw!) was having Miss Marple witnessing the murder. In the book, the murder was witnessed by Mrs. Elspeth McGillicuddy, an acquaintance of Miss Marple, and Miss Marple was the only one to believe Mrs. McGillicuddy's account.

reply

How did Miss Marple ever conclude that the dead woman was the doctor's wife? There are plenty other possible explanations for the ongoings, even if you decide that the doctor is the murderer; how the heck did she guess the right one? For the reasons stated above, this one does not even make much sense.


Agreed, I missed how she came to that conclusion. It must have been something to do with the music box. Maybe there was an engraving in the box that could link him directly to the woman? Don't remember that being mentioned though.

reply