Murder on the Orient Express

“Not now. Not now. When it’s all over. When it’s behind us—then—”

Mary Debenham says these words to Colonel Arbuthnot. They foreshadow the murder to come and speak to the intimate link between the two characters. Poirot overhears and will come back to this conversation repeatedly—an early clue that the characters aren’t all who they claim to be (and that their relationships with one another aren’t what they may seem).

“When he passed me in the restaurant, I had a curious impression. It was as though a wild animal—an animal savage, but savage! You understand—had passed me by.”

This is how Poirot describes Mr. Ratchett (Cassetti) when first meeting him. Poirot’s assessment of Cassetti’s character testifies to the detective’s ability to “read” people.

“It lends itself to romance, my friend. All around us are people, of all classes, of all nationalities, of all ages, are brought together. They sleep and eat under one roof, they cannot get away from each other.”

Bouc says this to Poirot, highlighting the diversity of nationalities on the Orient Express. Another early clue, this diversity is something Poirot will come back to when he cracks the case, concluding that only an American household—in this case, the Armstrong household—would hold such a strange mix of European nationalities.

“Down the corridor a woman wrapped in a scarlet kimono was retreating from him. At the other end, sitting on his little seat, the conductor was entering up figures on large sheets of paper. Everything was deathly quiet.”

In this pivotal moment, Poirot spies the woman in the scarlet kimono, an important red herring. The scarlet kimono is also a symbolic representation of the book’s red herrings at large—it’s literally a red herring.

“The murderer is with us—on the train now…”

Bouc says these words to Poirot. They set the stage for the locked-room mystery, making it clear that the train’s passengers are trapped with a murderer. This also helps create an ominous sense of foreboding.

“I cannot see this sober, long-headed MacQueen losing his head and stabbing a victim twelve or fourteen times. It is not in accord with his psychology—not at all.”

Poirot says these words about MacQueen, introducing a central theme of the book—The Psychology of Investigation. With no external resources available due to the locked-room nature of the murder, Poirot must primarily rely on psychological clues to solve this mystery.

“I suspect everybody till the last minute.”

Poirot says this to Bouc when Bouc suggests that it’s possible to eliminate MacQueen as a suspect. Poirot’s words offer foreshadowing and are prophetic—in the end, everyone will prove to be a suspect, and every suspect will prove to be guilty.

“Exactly as it happens in the books and on the films.”

This is how Poirot describes the clues found in Mr. Ratchett (Cassetti)’s compartment—the pipe cleaner and the handkerchief. Already, Poirot suspects these are red herrings, and his words here suggest that to the reader. The phrasing also points to the concepts of performance and lies, and how they relate to the theme of The Psychology of Investigation.

“—member little Daisy Armstrong.”

This is what’s written on the scrap of paper Poirot finds in Mr. Ratchett (Cassetti)’s compartment. It’s one of the book’s few real clues, and is how he discerns Mr. Ratchett’s real identity—and starts looking at how the other passengers are linked to the Armstrong family.

“The swine deserved what he got. Though I would have preferred to have seen him properly hanged—or electrocuted, I suppose, over there.”

Colonel Arbuthnot says this Poirot and the words speak to Arbuthnot’s sense of justice. The distinction that Arbuthnot speaks to highlights the book’s theme of Justice Versus Retribution.

“In fact, Colonel Arbuthnot, you prefer law-and-order to private vengeance?”

“Well, you can’t go about having blood feuds and stabbing each other like Corsicans or the Mafia. […] Say what you like, trial by jury is a sound system.”

Ironically, the Englishman Colonel Arbuthnot takes part in a scheme for retributions, emulating exactly the “Corsicans” and “Mafia” he disparages. The Colonel’s mention of “trial by jury” serves as a clue for Poirot—who notes that a traditional US jury has 12 people on it.

“One must respect the psychology. The crime has a signature and it is certainly not the signature of Colonel Arbuthnot.”

Poirot says these words to Bouc and Dr. Constantine, again reiterating the importance of The Psychology of Investigation—a central theme in the book.

“A small man, dark, with a womanish kind of voice.”

This is how Hardman describes the supposed enemy of Mr. Ratchett (Cassetti). This person is completely invented—a significant red herring. It’s a confusing red herring, because at first it seems like the “fake” aspect is simply the conductor’s gender—the reader realizes it’s a woman dressed as a man and thinks they’ve solved the clue. In fact, the clue doesn’t exist at all.

“Italians use the knife! And they are great liars! I do not like Italians.”

Bouc says this to Poirot—he strongly suspects “the Italian” and upholds national stereotypes to back up his assertion. His words that “I do not like Italians” also demonstrate the novel’s theme of Xenophobic Discrimination.

“It is a far-sighted, long-headed crime. It is no—how shall I express it?—a Latin crime. It is a crime that shows traces of a cool, resourceful, deliberate brain—I think an Anglo-Saxon brain.”

Poirot emphasizes The Psychology of Investigation. He’s responding to Bouc’s suspicion that “the Italian” is the murderer. Poirot’s nationalistic distinctions here also speak to the themes of Xenophobic Discrimination.

“The one I saw was small and dark. He had a little moustache. His voice when he said Pardon was weak like a woman’s.”

Hildegard Schmidt gives this description of the mysterious conductor she encountered on the night of the murder. This moment exemplifies how well-orchestrated the murder plan was: Two seemingly unacquainted individuals, Hildegard Schmidt and Hardman, refer to the exact same person—who in fact is purely fictitious.

“What to my mind is so interesting in this case is that we have none of the facilities afforded to the police. We cannot investigate the bona fides of any of these people. We have to rely solely on deduction.”

With these words, Poirot highlights the challenges of a locked-room mystery. Instead of doing research into people’s characters for example by calling professional references, he must rely purely on psychological deductions.

“Are these people whose evidence we have taken speaking the truth or lying?”

Poirot poses this rhetorical question to Bouc and Dr. Constantine—but also the reader. It’s the author’s reminder that the information provided by the characters cannot be taken at face value.

“Her voice rang out passionately. She was the true daughter of that mother, the emotional force of whose acting had moved huge audiences to tears.”

This is how the narrator describes Countess Andrenyi (Helena Goldenberg), illuminating her ability to deceive, lie, and act—all of which plays into the theme of The Psychology of Investigation (part of which includes being able to tell when someone is lying). This moment also foreshadows her familial connection to Linda Arden, the actual actress.

“In this case I consider that justice—strict justice—has been done.”

Princess Dragomiroff says this after Poirot accuses her of lying to him regarding Countess Andrenyi (Helena Goldenberg)’s true identity. The Princess confirms that she lied and says she’d do so again—all in the interest of loyalty to her friend and justice.

“Lies—and again lies—it amazes me, the amount of lies we had told to us this morning.”

Bouc says this to Poirot as the lies the various passengers have told them start to become clear. The concept of lies and performative actions are linked to the theme of The Psychology of Investigation.

“In America there might be a household composed of just such varied nationalities—an Italian chauffeur, an English governess, a Swedish nurse, a French lady’s-maid and so on. That led to my scheme of ‘guessing’—that is, casting each person for a certain part in the Armstrong drama much as a producer casts a play.”

Poirot returns to an observation made by Bouc, regarding the multinational nature of the train’s passengers. This diversity will end up being a central clue Poirot elucidates here.

“They were all in it. For so many people connected with the Armstrong case to be travelling by the same train by a coincidence was not only unlikely, it was impossible.”

These words from Poirot highlight the most critical clue in the case: the scrap of paper referencing the Armstrong case. Without this clue—one of the few real clues amidst many false clues—Poirot may never have realized who Cassetti was or been able to link all 12 passengers to Cassetti.