Book vs Film, Agatha Christie's DUMB WITNESS

Having recently reviewed DUMB WITNESS, I decided to watch a TV version to see what changes the dramatisation made to the Christie story.
The one I chose to watch was produced in 1996 with David Suchet playing Poirot and Hugh Fraser playing Captain Hastings.

The first thing that strikes you is the change of setting: from Berkshire to Windermere (Coniston Water).
The second is the change of time frame: Charles Arundell is attempting to set a new water speed record, so the time frame has been changed from the mid 1930s to around 1949/1950. (Donald Campbell is mentioned in passing).

Here are some of the other modifications

• Hastings and Poirot have come to Coniston Water to watch Arundell's attempt because Hastings is a friend of Arundell's
• Emily Arundell confides her worries to Hercule Poirot prior to her death, and he persuades her to re write her will.
  
• There is no letter from Lady Arundell to Hercule Poirot (in the book posted after her death)
• after Emily Arundell dies there is a second murder (I won't tell you who)
• the companion Minnie Lawson is involved romantically with the local Doctor - in the book it is Theresa Arundell.
• Bob's ball is always kept in his basket, not in the drawer of the hall stand
• the problem of who becomes the eventual owner of Bob the dog is solved (in the book Poirot has to take him)
• Poirot's own form of justice (mentioned in my book review) does not eventuate because he never gives the murderer a written version of his understanding of what has happened.

The actual plot/murderer is unchanged, and all is revealed, Poirot-style, in a final denouement when all the characters in the story are assembled. However because of the changes I've listed above, many of the red herrings are either left out or do not work.

Which did I prefer? well, the book actually. I think the suspense was better there and the characters better drawn.