This was one of the Poirot episodes that required a lot of padding by the screenwriters. The original story itself was quite basic: at dinner one evening, Poirot hears a waitress make a chance remark that a regular customer had ordered a meal that was very different from his usual tastes. A few days later he hears from his dinner companion that that same habitual customer from the restaurant had happened to die that very evening, apparently by accident. Poirot's curiosity is aroused, and by talking with a series of acquaintances of the dead man, and calling on his knowledge of human nature, he is able to determine that the man's death was not all it appeared to be.
A simple enough story, and lacking some of the detail that would make it appealing to television viewers. So, the writers added in some considerable amount of background of the dead man's artistic career and family, along with a series of references to contemporary forensic science (faint traces of CSI!), cricket, and even a passing reference to Raffles, a fictional mystery-solving character from the 1930's. Nothing wrong with any of that. Didn't really add to the essential story, but didn't take away from it either. All in all, an episode that was enjoyable but not very memorable.
A simple enough story, and lacking some of the detail that would make it appealing to television viewers. So, the writers added in some considerable amount of background of the dead man's artistic career and family, along with a series of references to contemporary forensic science (faint traces of CSI!), cricket, and even a passing reference to Raffles, a fictional mystery-solving character from the 1930's. Nothing wrong with any of that. Didn't really add to the essential story, but didn't take away from it either. All in all, an episode that was enjoyable but not very memorable.