Columbo : Columbo's methods

Columbo's methods

Would Columbo's methods have help up in a court of law?
Thank you
erikbeale@yahoo.com

Re: Columbo's methods

I'm not a cop or anything, but I've read he would have had problems with his keeping evidence in his pockets like he did. He did bluff a lot, but that's actually legally OK and done in real life. I get the idea that other people think the bad guys could walk free if they had good lawyers, if he didn't break their spirit, if that's the right phrase.

"I used to be a detective like you, but then I took a bullet to the knee."-Law & Order: Dragon Squad

Re: Columbo's methods

I am reminded of A Stitch in Crime, where Leonard Nimoy's character manages to plant the incriminating dissolving suture in Columbo's pocket. Columbo doesn't notice it, but thinks to check anyway because it was the only place they didn't search. So Columbo finds the "smoking gun" in his own pocket, and this is supposed to be the "gotcha" moment. But as far as I can tell, it would be inadmissible - Columbo fished it out of his own pocket himself, with his bare hands, and he cannot prove that Nimoy's character put it there. The intended victim is now stitched up in permanent suture, and the villainous surgeon could argue that he reused the suture - but why he didn't bring a spare of permanent suture with him to present to the police (because they were looking for the old suture), I don't know.

Re: Columbo's methods

There's no reason why that would be inadmissible. You could attack Lt. Columbo's credibility, saying he planted the suture on himself and tried to frame the doctor, but that's different from saying that the evidence is inadmissible.

Re: Columbo's methods

Should we email you with our thoughts?

Re: Columbo's methods

His methods usually get people to confess so I don't think it really matters unless he was threatening them or planting evidence, which I don't recall him doing.

Re: Columbo's methods

And sometimes his evidence is so weak, that it doesn't make sense for the murderer to confess.

For example, Murder by the Book, Any Old Port in a Storm, Mind over Mayheim, a Matter of Honor, Old Fashion Murder, to name a few...

Re: Columbo's methods

All the eating and drinking on the job would definitely be frowned upon. 😂
"I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"

Re: Columbo's methods

The brilliance of Columbo's final reveal is that it's so overwhelming to the killer that he or she ultimately resigns to their fate of getting busted that they don't think of any possible means of escaping justice.

Re: Columbo's methods

And the fact that they are so exhausted from his routine of showing up literally everywhere they go and the "Just ONE more thing sir/ma'am!" :D

---
Fear not for the future; weep not for the past -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---

Re: Columbo's methods

Yeah, Any Old Port is a good example. As far as I can recall, there really was no evidence that Carsini had murdered anyone. Yeah, Columbo caught him disposing of bottles of overheated wine at the beach. Okay, so maybe that proves that his wine cellar got too hot over that warm weekend. So what? What does that prove? That the air conditioning unit failed? Okay, sure. But how does that prove murder?

Re: Columbo's methods

In "Dagger of the Mind" the killers confess only after Columbo plants evidence. This is one of the episodes where I was somewhat disappointed by the reveal and by Columbo's character in general.

I'm also not a fan of episodes in murder mysteries where they plant the detective at the location and coincidentally a murder occurs, for example, while they're a guest somewhere or on vacation.

Re: Columbo's methods

Yeah, that was by far the worst ending to a Colombo episode. In fact, it wasn't even a confession -- merely a shocked or dismayed facial expression. No way would that be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Columbo's methods

No way. First no cop is ever going to keep showing at your home, your job, wherever he wants multiple times asking all these seemingly weird questions. Doesn't happen that way except on tv with Columbo. Any smart is going lawyer up immediately, any question talk to my attorney. If cop start showing up all over the place bothering you that's harassment, your attorney can solve that, you do not have to speak to the cops without attorney and guaranteed half Columbo's questions would get shot down. The cops in this show are bumbling idiots that mishandle crime scenes, destroy, evidence, mishandle it, etc. I've seen Columbo enter residences with no warrant and be snooping when suspect shows up. Even a public defender could get you off if Columbo did the investigation. If by chance some bonehead DA even tried to prosecute on this bogus evidence any attorney worth be filing a motion to suppress immediately and win. Columbo wouldn't be a cop very long. That said I love the show but it's tv not reality.

Re: Columbo's methods


No way. First no cop is ever going to keep showing at your home, your job, wherever he wants multiple times asking all these seemingly weird questions. Doesn't happen that way except on tv with Columbo. Any smart is going lawyer up immediately, any question talk to my attorney. If cop start showing up all over the place bothering you that's harassment, your attorney can solve that, you do not have to speak to the cops without attorney and guaranteed half Columbo's questions would get shot down. The cops in this show are bumbling idiots that mishandle crime scenes, destroy, evidence, mishandle it, etc. I've seen Columbo enter residences with no warrant and be snooping when suspect shows up. Even a public defender could get you off if Columbo did the investigation. If by chance some bonehead DA even tried to prosecute on this bogus evidence any attorney worth be filing a motion to suppress immediately and win. Columbo wouldn't be a cop very long. That said I love the show but it's tv not reality.


I agree with a lot of what you say, esp when used in today's context. I wasn't alive when Columbo was on and always just thought, "well I guess cops and the court system was different back then". I agree today Columbo would have a hard time, but I wonder if back then it was more acceptable to go follow someone around and ask them the questions, and even bring his dog lol. I am guessing it still was tv back then but maybe it would have been easier than today for him.

Re: Columbo's methods

It was a long time ago, and it'a a fictional reflexion of police work, as seen on TV.
At least his intentions and his instinct were always on point -- and Columbo strived for REAL justice. Supported by evidence (as best as was available in those years, filtered through the Hollywood lens.)

Today, will it matter?! USA just elected a liar-in-chief. Justice? Irrelevant. Who cares about facts, or evidence?!

Re: Columbo's methods

Can you keep your stupid politics away from here?

Re: Columbo's methods

Thank you. I feel the same way. I come here to get away from all the political stuff.

Re: Columbo's methods

Probably not but by the end of all of the episodes all of the murderers admit to the crime so these cases are never taken into the court of law the criminal is taken straight to jail.

Re: Columbo's methods

Yeah, in a lot of Columbo episodes, the evidence is pretty weak (seems damning at first, but on further reflection, isn't so much), and I think that if the murderer would just keep his mouth shut, he'd be able to beat the charges.

Still fun to watch, though. 😀

Re: Columbo's methods

I think for the most part, yes.

I recall a particularly interesting situation in Suitable For Framing in which the good lieutenant put his hands on a couple of stolen glass-framed paintings that were in a bag being carried by the murderer, but did not remove them or see them. He was able to prove that the murderer ("Dale Kingston") had the paintings in his bag at the crucial time by showing that Columbo's fingerprints were on them. If Columbo had removed the paintings from Kingston's bag, that would have been considered a search or seizure (done without permission or a warrant), and any evidence pertaining thereto would have been inadmissible. But the mere existence of Columbo's fingerprints on the paintings would not be considered a search or seizure, and thus that fact would be admissible in court. I thought that was quite clever. (Along with Columbo's sagacious decision to put gloves on his hands later when confronting Kingston with that fact, in order to quash Kingston's predictable response that Columbo had just touched the paintings at that time.)

Contrast that, however, with Candidate For Crime, where, if I recall correctly, Lt. Columbo dug a bullet out of a wall in the bedroom of Nelson Hayward's hotel suite, hours before Hayward claimed that he had been shot at. That bedroom was a personal area, and was not accessible -- or at least, was not supposed to be accessible -- to anyone but Hayward himself and his invited guests. Thus, Hayward would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and Columbo's entering that room and removing a bullet from the wall (without permission or a search warrant) would have been unconstitutional and the resulting evidence would be inadmissible.

But that was a rare misstep, and I think most of Columbo's investigatory techniques would have been considered legally valid.

Re: Columbo's methods

Me too. Remember, Columbo is most often invited to come around in the perp's attempts to be "helpful" to the case. By the time the perps get testy, it's too late, Columbo has it figured out.
Top