How to explain the mystique of George Simenon's Maigret mysteries: For me, one doesn't read Simenon's Maigret mysteries simply for setup, epiphanous moment, and denouement. I would say the same is true of watching this series. Getting to and finding out "Who did it?" matters, yes, but only a bit. The best parts are the lingering moments in between. In this episode, more than almost any others, I think the scriptwriters have outdone Simenon in delivering on those "moments."
Mr. Fumal, a wealthy and influential businessman comes to Maigret for protection. Fumal shows Maigret anonymous notes he's received that include threats of death. Maigret and Fumal knew each other from childhood days, and Maigret's memory of Fumal is not a pleasant one. Maigret, though, tries to ignore his antipathy toward Fumal and provides some police presence at the man's house. But then Fumal is murdered. How could someone murder Fumal with police nearby and on close call?
While there are several suspects all of whom hated Fumal, who among them would have had the opportunity and willingness to kill? His secretary? His butler? His accountant? His wife? His brother-in-law? His mistress? His chauffeur? Or a fellow businessman?
The reveal of the murderer and the story's conclusion is perfect Maigret. Absolutely perfect. And yet . . . The scriptwriters achieved this by slightly departing from the book and improving on Simenon's conclusion. Yes, the murderer is the same in both book and film, but . . . In the novel Simenon throws out some tidbits here and there--comments about the past--but leaves them never to return. In this episode the scriptwriters decided to follow some small, almost throw-away bits of dialogue included in the book and take them to an appropriate conclusion. The ending here is the ending Simenon should have written. There's a poignancy at the end seldom seen in television episodic murder mysteries.