Christie Papers

When new articles and information are added to the site we'll give you a taster here ...

Login or Register to post a comment

Is the solution to Murder in Mesopotamia plausible?

15 Feb 10 11:36AM

Is the solution to Murder in Mesopotamia plausible?

By Chris Chan

SPOILER WARNING!  THIS ESSAY CONTAINS SPOILERS TO THE SOLUTION OF MURDER IN MESOPOTAMIA.  DO NOT READ THIS ESSAY IF YOU HAVE NOT READ MURDER IN MESOPOTAMIA!!!

A few of Christie's endings are controversial. For example, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd has provoked opposing responses from critics as eminent as August Derleth (who thought that stylistic flaws ruined the story) to Dorothy L. Sayers (who contended that the book was extremely fair). The controversy in this case stems from arguments over whether Christie played fair with the rules of evidence.  In contrast, the novel Murder in Mesopotamia has provoked a firestorm of debate over whether or not the solution is even possible.  In A Talent to Deceive, critic Robert Barnard argues that the "ending goes beyond the improbable to the inconceivable."  But is it?

In Murder in Mesopotamia, the unpleasant Louise Leidner accompanies her archaeologist husband on a trip to the Middle East.  One day, Mrs. Leidner is found battered to death.  By the end of the novel, Poirot deduces that Dr. Leidner murdered his wife.  The motive?  During the First World War, the victim married Frederick Bosner, who unbeknownst to her was a German spy.  After the truth was discovered, Bosner escaped prosecution but was presumably killed in a terrible accident.  Louise tried to move on with her life, but every time she became romantically interested in a man, threatening letters arrived and told her to end the relationship.  This continued for a decade and a half, until she met Dr. Leidner.  Since no threats followed, they married.

As Poirot discovers, Dr. Leidner is really Frederick Bosner.  After the train accident, Frederick Bosner switched identities with the dead and unidentifiably disfigured Erich Leidner, allowed a suitable amount of time to pass, and then courted and remarried his wife.  Later, when he discovered that she was romantically attached to another man, Bosner/Leidner killed her out of jealousy.

The main point of contention in this mystery is whether or not the Bosner/Leidner double life is plausible.  Many critics find it impossible to believe that Louise Bosner Leidner failed to recognize that both her husbands were the same man.  The point of this essay is to prove that although the situation depicted in this story may sound improbable, it was indeed possible.

First of all, the point that nine out of ten women, or even nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine out of a million women would have made the connection between her two husbands is a fair point, but there is always an exception to the rule.  As Poirot is fond of saying, it is the psychology of the individual that counts.  Poirot also said in The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim that a woman almost always knows her husband, no matter how well the rest of the world may be deceived.  Although some readers might contend that Poirot is contradicting himself, the pertinent word is almost.  The solution to Murder in Mesopotamia is plausible if one looks for reasons to prove that Louise Bosner Leidner was the sort of person whose mental make-up prevented her from realizing the truth.

Not everyone has the same capacity for facial recognition.  There are plenty of people who could have a childhood best friend move away at the age of six, and then sixty years later run in to the childhood buddy and recognize the person right away, despite not seeing the old friend in over half a century.

But to use another reference from a Christie novel, sometimes even minor changes in appearance can leave certain people incapable of recognizing people they see every day.  In Cat Among the Pigeons, Poirot tests the reliability of a young woman by having sketches made of a few school employees she sees every day, only with the hairstyles and eyebrows altered.  The witness fails to identify the people in the pictures, aside from seeing a vague resemblance in one sketch.  Of course, this is a fictional example, but certainly this situation is well within the bounds of probability.

Different people's memories respond to different stimuli.  The famous memory-testing pastime Kim's Game, in its standard form, revolves around a selection of assorted objects being placed near the players.  The participants are given a certain amount of time to study the assortment, and then they are given a set length of time to write down as many items as they can remember.  Very few people remember all the items.  In general, people only remember a tiny minority of the items, and often there is some sort of link between the remembered items that helps them stick into a person's mind.  A Christie-centered example of this is in Cards on the Table, where Poirot looks for clues by asking four suspects what details they remember about a room.  One observer remembers most of the room's decorations, another remembers almost nothing save for a couple of flower arrangements, another focuses on the more exotic ornaments, and the fourth chiefly remembers a selection of jewelry and a couple of instances of shoddy housekeeping.  Checking their memories helps Poirot develop psychological profiles of the four suspects, thereby determining who the most likely killer is.

Louise Leidner's personality is therefore crucial to building a solid case for proving the plausibility of Christie's solution.  Louise is a self-absorbed character, vain, high-strung, and delighted by the prospect of making every man in her proximity fall in love with her.  She enjoyed being the center of attention and didn't care about the effects that her flirtations with other men had on her husband.  Louise saw herself as the star of her own life, and everyone else was merely a bit player in her own drama.  She may have loved her husband, but it's possible that such a self-obsessed woman simply failed to pay close attention to certain details of her husband's appearance and behavior during her first marriage.

The question arises: did Louise even want to remember the details of life with Frederick Bosner?  After all, it's not a mark of social distinction to be the wife of a convicted traitor.  She most likely felt betrayed by the revelations about her husband, and perhaps she made a conscious effort to block out many of her memories about him.  Since no memorabilia about her first marriage is mentioned as being among her effects at the dig (and in any case, an old photograph might have proved fatal to Bosner/Leidner), perhaps she destroyed all of her pictures and any other items connected to her husband.  Without anything to refer to for an image of Frederick Bosner, she was left with only her own memories, which could very likely have distorted over time.  Since Louise had developed a highly negative view of Bosner, due to his treason and the years of harassment through threatening notes, it's within the bounds of possibility that her mental picture of Bosner got distorted to make him appear more villainous than he could possibly be in real life.

There are many reasons why Louise might blind herself to the possibilities that both of her husbands were the same man.  She had been denied a real romantic relationship for about fifteen years, despite being an attractive woman.   (It is unclear how Bosner/Leidner kept apprised of when Louise was being courted.  Perhaps his younger brother spied on her and kept him informed.)  Perhaps she was so relieved to finally be married to a nice archaeologist that she unconsciously blocked any recognition of her husband.  She might have had a "this is my last chance at happiness" attitude, allowing her to blind herself to any similarities she might have noticed.

But were there many similarities to notice?  Bosner/Leidner was playing a careful game of deliberate misdirection.  He had carefully crafted his new identity to be substantially different from his old personality.  He was older, his hair was different, he had grown a beard, he shoulders were stooped, thereby changing his posture and gait, and the natural aging process had changed his appearance substantially.  Most people can recall an instance where a close acquaintance altered his or her hairstyle, changed clothing styles, or gained or lost weight, and upon seeing that changed friend, failed to recognize him or her.  Now a husband is different from a friend, but the Bosners were not married for very long, and they had no time to fall into routines or even become really know each other well at all.  The Bosner in Louise's mind was quite possibly radically different from the real-life man.

Another point is that the most evocative sense in terms of recalling memories is smell.  By using different toiletries in combination with the odors one might pick up on an archaeological dig in the sand and hot sun, Leidner could have avoided scent triggers that might connect him with Bosner.

To cite a real-life example of how such uncertainty over a husband's identity could really happen, consider the famous case of Martin Guerre, where a young man left his wife for several years to fight as a soldier.  A man claiming to be Martin Guerre returned, and for years he and his wife and family lived happily, until allegations that he was an impostor surfaced.  He weathered the accusations and was almost acquitted of imposture, when another man claiming to be the real Martin Guerre showed up in court.  The family identified the newcomer, and the first Martin Guerre to return was executed.  To this day, however, historians and pundits are split as to whether the first or the second Martin Guerre was the real man, or if both were impostors.

This situation is also a nightmare for many men.  It is a point of masculine pride for plenty of males that a woman will always remember a man she has once loved.  The prospect that a woman could potentially not recognize a husband is a major bruise to the ego of a lot of guys.  Now, this essay does not assert that all of the male critics who find the solution unlikely are only making the claims that they do out of injured vanity, but does possibly explain the reasons why some people might unconsciously want to find the situation impossible.

Would the vast majority of women have realized that their second husband was actually their first husband?  Quite probably.  But for all of the reasons stated above, it is certainly possible that a woman like Louise simply failed to make the connection.  The critics are justified in believing that such a situation is improbable, but it is certainly not impossible or even implausible.

• 11 comments

Comment on this story

Login or Register to post a comment

11 comments

treplag 07 Nov 11 at 4:46p.m.

I don't believe it is possible for anyone of average intelligence to be married to, and live in close proximity with, someone and not know that he or she is the same person they were married to previously. Besides the face, there are the voice, mannerisms, habits and tastes which it would be impossible to disguise for any length of time if one is behaving normally. Father Lavigny would have been a much more plausible murderer if, say, Louise had happened to discover his true identity. I think Dame Agatha reached just a little too far this time.

shana 18 Jan 11 at 4:54p.m.

hello byidgie, besides clues being unavailable to the reader, often it is also necessary to have knowlegde of the English way of living. As a foreigner reading Ac's novels you can also have that disadvantage stopping you from ever guessing what really happened.

idgie 09 Jul 10 at 4:28a.m.

My problem with Murder in Mesopotamia is more to do with the 'rules' of detective fiction. I think I am right in saying that we, as readers, do not find out that Frederick Bosner survived the accident until Poirot reveals it. Thus, the detective has access to a clue that the reader does not. I always found this a little annoying, as the majority of Christie's books stuck to the rules of the Detection Club.

shana 07 Apr 10 at 4:41p.m.

Besides smell and fysical features i think of all things the husbands voice should have given away his true identity.
So i agree, I think she simply didn't want to remember. By the way this plot has also been used liberally in some Hindi movies.

slinkycat 01 Mar 10 at 3:08p.m.

I thought the ending could be possible though maybe not probable. I've heard a woman can pick her new born out of a group of new born babies by it's smell. I don't know if that's true but I'm sure for some smell is significant to recognizing a person so I suppose it could be true for other points.

Thanks for the essay, though, I will think more about it the next time I read the story. And it's really unfortunate that Martin Guerre was executed. What if he was the wrong one!

Poofygoo 28 Feb 10 at 10:17p.m.

Thought-provoking post, nice work!

It seems as though Louise would indeed have to be quite self-absorbed or deliberately blind for the guise to work. While I see Chris and some of the commenters' points about the relationship not being too intimate and Bosner/Leiden disguising himself, these seem too superficial to really be plausible. A woman quickly learns the subtle and often unconscious features of her partner. Simply changing colognes and haircolor would be exhausting to keep up and likely still not be fully convincing to 90% of women. It's one thing to commit the perfect crime and lie to the police during the course of an investigation, but to lie to the person you share a bed with day in and out takes sleight of hand akin to sorcery.

More likely, as Louise is such an extraordinarily unpleasant woman, I have to wonder if she was on to the ruse, which was also my thought about Martin Guerre's wife. If so, what was in it for her? Companionship? Meh - why go to the trouble of having an affair? (Although that's precisely my thought on MG's wife.)

Since this is Christie we're talking about, I'd like to propose that Louise had her own sinister plot afoot. Chris points out that no one wants to be the wife of a convicted traitor and that moreover, Louise is quite vain and would have resented Bosner deeply. Hell hath no fury, right? A parallel telling of the story could have just as easily had Louise knowing Leiden was more than just a doppelganger, but biding her time until she could murder him for revenge. He just beat her to the punches, so to speak.

Kerr52 26 Feb 10 at 12:45p.m.

a wonderful essay from chris chan. bravo!
but i wondered why there was not more suspicion regarding why the threats had ceased when Louise Leidner met the "good" dr. surely this was an aspect of their relationship that was to be questioned. good fortune or a bad omen?
of course this can be explained away but it niggled me.
cheeeers

AndreaWilkins 24 Feb 10 at 10:15a.m.

There are some great points to think about in the essay - he was obviously a very clever man, being able to decieve his wife, even if she had indeed had an incling, he would have been able to manipulate the situation in his favour :)

Anita_Clue 23 Feb 10 at 6:46p.m.

I've heard of lots of marriages taken during the war that the wedding would be very quick because the husband was being shipped overseas. Perhaps they did not have time to have a very close and intimate relationship. This would not have created a lasting impression on Louise's mind and, therefore, did not notice any similarities between her first and second husbands.

Also, I myself have gone to class reunions and had difficulty recognizing someone I had gone to school with for 12 years.

DagaL 16 Feb 10 at 11:24a.m.

This is a very interesting essay. I must say that I had the same doubts while reading Murder in Mesopotamia. I do agree that it is possible not to recoginise a person known before, however, I came up with the idea that maybe she did recognise her previous husband, but simply didnt admit it because in the end she loved him. As a respectable person (sic!), she couldnt be with someone who was accused of treason. The opportunity to be with the same person but under different name didnt sound bad. But maybe it's just my romantic approach. Maybe in fact, as you have written she was 'a self-absorbed character, vain, high-strung, and delighted by the prospect of making every man in her proximity fall in love with her. She enjoyed being the center of attention', she adored being adored and didnt care much about others.

illusclaire 15 Feb 10 at 6:34p.m.

Good points! Plus, if she did feel any recognition, she could have easily understood it as simple attraction - she must have fancied her initial-identitied husband at one point, and there's no reason why she shouldn't be attracted to the same base qualities in his second guise.