At first, seeing the introduction mention that Poirot gave two conclusions made me think that he had not solved the case, and I suddenly realized after reading it. The two conclusions correspond to conscience and law, respectively. I agree and appreciate the unanimous choice of conscience over law to bring justice. I believe most people will side with the law and argue that the law, not the individual, has the right to try criminals. This is also one of the foundations of the operation of society. Even the superheroes that people create uphold this. This is beyond reproach, because those who hold opposing views are not called heroes.
Where the brilliance of the law does not shine, a conscience is needed to exercise its authority on its behalf. When the law and conscience are not contradictory, "official business" is the most beautiful word, and when the law talks about conscience as a stumbling block, "public affairs" is the cruelest and coldest trial.
Such flesh-and-blood Poirot reminds me of Holmes, for they have chosen conscience before conscience and law. More than once, Holmes helped the "murderer" to get justice and redeem himself and eventually escape the law. Conan's idol is Sherlock Holmes, and although Conan is good at reasoning and solving cases, he will never become Sherlock Holmes, precisely because he lacks empathy for the murderer and the dead, and he will always choose to side with the law in the face of law and conscience.
![Detective Movie: Murder on the Orient Express, is the victim himself or someone else?[fig]]()