Hori and Ibneb are buddies—he arranges for her to meet old boy—puts him up to deed of settlement by pretending to object—she then rats or is going to—he kills her—then pretends—she is revenging herself on family— final scene with Renisenb—you Hori—young cousin rescues her
Son (bad lad) comes in—speaks to concubine—he likes her—idea is they are in it together
And there was another fascinating idea that never made it to the printed page at all. In Notebook 13 Christie toys with the idea of having a modern parallel running alongside the historical one. Indeed it is possible to see, even in these brief notes, similarities between the ancient and modern characters. The old professor and his young wife are Yahmose and Nofret, Julie is obviously Henet, Regina is a latter-day Renisenb and Edward and Silas could be Sobek and Ipy:
Modern start—Old professor or Chancellor—his young wife—he brings out son and son’s wife—widowed daughter and child
Julie (ancient Mademoiselle who has stayed with them)—young archaeologist who has stayed with them
Discovery of Tomb Letters—Including one from to dead wife who is accused of killing Tut
Author’s second wife died suddenly—she took drug by mistake
Young wife dies—quarrel between father and son and wife—F[ather] says new will—all to Ida
Julie and portrait of Eleanor (first wife) who was going to come back
Elaborated
Dr. Elinor Solomon Oppenheim
Ida—his young wife
Julie the faithful maid and companion ex-governess
Edward Mervyn Oppenheim—dependent on father—is he archaeologist
Charlotte—sculptress—or musician (pianist)—or historical—or political writer
Charlotte’s brother—Richard—the archaeologist
Regina Oppenheim a widow with children—Oscar Walsh
Jeremy Walsh—a young writer—psychic—deductive—knows too much about people
other son Silas
From the phrase ‘Young wife dies’, paralleling the death of Nofret, Imhotep’s young wife, it would seem that the parallels were to extend to further than family relationships. However, the idea was not pursued any further than these short notes—of course, if it had been it would have meant shorter stories within each period.
These two aspects—the alternative ending and the parallel narrative—make this an even more fascinating novel than heretofore suspected, even without bringing the groundbreaking feature of the historical setting into the discussion. Seemingly complete and interlocking as it is, it would seem that Christie was ready to embroider a few more threads through her narrative. It is entirely probable that had she pursued her present-day parallel, she would have revealed yet another solution; after all, if both branches of the story had arrived at the same destination, a distinct sense of anticlimax would have resulted. So a unique background produced one actual solution, another intended one and a possible third.
At the request of Superintendent Spence, Poirot agrees to reinvestigate the murder of charwoman Mrs McGinty, found battered to death two months earlier. Although James Bentley has been convicted of her murder, someone in Broadhinny is ready to kill again. And yet, they are all very nice people…
Continuing a pattern set two years earlier by
There are more than 70 pages of notes for this novel. Names, motives, suspects, the earlier cases, the current possibilities all appear in chaotic profusion. As we saw in Chapter 3, the permutations and combinations of the four vitally important early cases and their possible incarnations as current inhabitants of Broadhinny are almost limitless; and all of them are considered.
On the first page Christie sets out the premise of the novel, leaving only the name of the superintendent to be decided:
Inspector ? [sic] old friend retiring worried about case just ending at the Old Bailey (or just sentenced sent for trial).
Not right—evidence all there—motive—opportunity and clues—but all wrong—his duty to get the facts—sent them to Public Prosecutor—there his responsibility ended. He can’t do any more…Can P do something?
Facts?
No facts. No-one else with motive—as a matter of fact, they’re all very nice people
She eventually settled on Superintendent Spence, Poirot’s partner in investigation from his previous case,
And over 30 years after her first novel, her powers of invention show no signs of deserting her. She sketches at least seven possible scenarios before settling on the fourth one below. It would seem that the title was already decided, probably because it is the name of a children’s game, albeit not a very well known one. It is quoted and described in Chapter 1 but only the title is utilised and there is no attempt to follow the rest of the verse. This was the one unalterable fact around which she effortlessly wove these ideas, any one of which would have made an acceptable plot. As can be seen, preliminary notes for this case first emerged as early as 1947, five years before the book’s appearance:
Mrs McGinty’s Dead
Mrs M is charwoman—middle aged office cleaner—because of something in wastepaper basket—she pieced together letters? Had taken something home
Morphia in the morning tea—
Flats! Lawn Road—only super—Mrs M is one of the cleaners
1947
A. Mrs McGinty’s Dead
Start Charwoman found dead in office—Lifted to sofa—later discovered strangled
Someone goes to break news at her home—real Mrs M is dead 6 months ago—this one is known to other cleaners as her sister in law
Why?
Who?
A woman of 50-60—Hands calloused—feet manicured—good underclothes
Mrs McGinty’s Dead
A. Mrs M is a charwoman. When investigated, it is found that she has no past history—she bribed former woman and took her place—her references were forged—17 Norton St. Birmingham—an accommodation address. What was she doing in Eleanor Lee’s office…Evidence for blackmail?
B. Mrs M is a char—‘does for’ the Remington family—lives in a little house by P.O.—takes a lodger—(James McBride) her savings broken open—Or hit on head—blood on James’s clothes—he tries to burn them in boiler.
