This was the spring play at my school, and so of course I saw it. I’m pleased to say that I guessed right at intermission. But some questions remain:
First, what was the big deal with the goiter/iodine treatment? Apparently, at the same time that real-Lettie was being treated for tuberculosis in Switzerland, one of the L*ttie sisters was also being treated for goiter there, as well (I wasn’t clear on which one). This is treated as a key clue in the play, but, well, so what? I guess maybe it was meant as a way to put real-Lottie in the same place, so she’d be in a position to steal real-Lettie’s identity? But she could just as easily have been visiting her there, or stolen her identity from wherever she was at the time.
Second, what were the two potential-heir sisters (Pip and the other one) actually doing at the boarding house? The obvious reason would be for them to murder presumed-Lettie to ensure their inheritance, but they don’t seem to have made any effort to that end. One of them is established as working at a pharmacy, which would give her the opportunity to poison presumed-Lettie’s aspirins, but presumed-Lettie clearly knew about those, since she used them to kill Bunny. Also, were they working together, and did they even know each other? It’s said that they were separated when they were infants, but that might have been a lie.
Third, how could Edmund Swettingham have been suspected of being Pip? His mother was right there. Unless she was to have been in on it, too?
Removing the goiter leaves a large scar on the neck, in the front. She was therefore marked as to which sister she was and had to keep the scar hidden. I don’t know if that was clear in the play. It was very clear in the book.
They didn’t strictly need to both go to Switzerland, but having them both be gone for a significant amount of time let everyone’s memories fade a bit.
For the other questions, I think they are also answered in the book, but it’s been a long time since I read it. It would be unusual for Christie not to tie up these kinds of points. (Pip’s sister was Emma, the nicknames for some reason that I don’t remember based on the time designation Pip Emma or PM. As I remember, anyway).
This is one of those Christie mysteries that I remember the plot clearly enough that I never wanted to read it a second time, similar to The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Murder on the Orient Express and others with specific and unique plot points. Some of her other books seemed sort of generic, and I never could remember much about them or who “did it.” Formulaic, in other words.
Right, and in keeping with Christie’s habit of ‘playing fair’ with readers by dropping clues, the scarred sister was depicted as always wearing a pearl choker (which, we eventually found out, covered the scar).
Hm, I don’t think I remember her keeping her neck covered in the play… but I don’t know if that’s that the play omitted that, or just that I didn’t notice.
I haven’t read the book, but I’ve seen the movie/TV show with Zoe Wanamaker. They definitely were going with the idea that Pip was a boy. And, personally, I’ve only ever heard of it being used for a boy during that time frame – as a nickname for Philip.
I certainly didn’t jump to the conclusion that “Pip” must be male, but that’s partly because it’s not a very common name any more, and probably also subconsciously influenced by the fact that the cast of the production I saw were all girls.
Even if you assume that Pip was male, though, it seemed incongruous to accuse Edmund of being Pip. I got the impression that he and his mother were long-established residents of the community.