The Trudy’s eyes were not part of the solution, but it does explain why he’s out and about at night.
So… I have the box set of Columbo and Monk and watch them all the time (Monk was last night). Now I will probably pay more attention to how “dumb” the solving of the cases are.
In several episodes, Burger meets with Mason and talks about arresting the one who confessed. In one, Burger talked about how he didn’t mind losing because his job is to get to the truth.
The confession is in open court (sometimes on the witness stand), and the person who confesses is still under oath, having testified previously. Yes, the DA would check out the story, but the confession would raise a whole lot of reasonable doubt, so there was no way the DA would continue the prosecution (unless he could prove perjury).
It’s also not a random person: the one who confessed always had motive, means, and opportunity and Mason had shown the connection. Reasonable doubt even without the confession.
And Perry always knew who the real criminal was. Goading or tricking him into confessing was Perry’s superpower.
I enjoyed Monk at the time for what it was, but good god, they did have some frickin’ ridiculous plot devices, as this thread is reminding me.
Yeah, the cornea thing has so many levels of stupid-- one, that like you say, they would even survive an explosion; two, that someone could recognize transplanted corneas; and three, that new corneas could fix RP. I am about as layman as it gets when it comes to doctorin’, and even I know the cornea is in the front of the eye and the retina is in the back.
Not to mention that corneas are clear - that’s kinda the point of them. How would you recognize transplanted corneas?
Yeah, it’s like-- I recognize the pane of glass in that window-- it was transplanted from my old house that was torn down!
Well, duh! OBVIOUSLY the “saggy” glass distortion is distinctive. I could even tell if it was installed upside down.
You’ll never make it as a world-class detective if you can’t tell glass apart.
I don’t know which one is dumbest but pick any episode of SVU.
I’ve got one I’m curious about: I don’t know if the consensus on the SDMB will be a “that’s no good” or a “well, actually…”
So: in DOUBLE EXPOSURE, Columbo’s target is a guy who has an alibi and no obvious motive; he also frames someone else, who has an obvious motive and no alibi; the killer also makes no secret of owning various large-barrel handguns, which he displays next to his trophies for pistol marksmanship. What he does make a secret of — and what Columbo spends the episode not figuring out — is that he can insert a smaller barrel in one of those, fire a shot to kill a guy, and then remove and hide that smaller barrel.
So if you check the barrels of the guns he displays — again, even though he has an alibi and no motive, and someone else has the reverse — they won’t match the bullet. And if you also search every place big enough to hide a small-caliber gun, you’ll likewise come up empty, because he’s only hidden the small barrel.
So, near the end of the episode, Columbo still honestly doesn’t know where to look; that is, he goes to the suspect’s office to look around in general — and gets cautioned by the guy with him that, hey, “wait a minute; flashing your badge to get past a guard is one thing, but this is searching without a warrant” — prompting Columbo to explain that he’s not actually searching.
And, at that, he doesn’t actually find anything.
Instead, his plan to get a clue is: to show the suspect a movie with a subliminal ad for ‘Columbo, Looking Around Your Office.’ At which point the suspect goes to that office and checks a spot too small to hide an entire gun, at which point Columbo catches him with the evidence and realizes how the killing was done, and explains to the killer about the subliminal cuts.
Caught, the killer states that Columbo never would’ve solved it without that subliminal-cut technique. Columbo says he’s right.
So, my question is: is subliminal advertising a legitimate way for an otherwise-stumped detective to solve a crime?
Short answer: since it doesn’t work, no.
Larger answer, in a world where subliminal advertising worked, it would most likely be illegal. It would be like brainwashing a suspect.
Yeah that episode always bugged me. The killer uses subliminal images as part of his plot, then Columbo uses subliminal images to catch him. It would all be nice and neat, except subliminal images don’t work.
But the interesting part is: for the killer, that may well have been mere frippery; right before he starts the movie for an audience in a warm room, he lets that guy — the boss of all the other folks in the audience — gorge himself on mouthfuls of super-salty caviar. And that guy — the only one who’d dare to walk out during the screening, and the only one looking to rinse the saltiness from his mouth — is the only one who leaves to use the water fountain during the subliminal-ad movie. So you could pretty easily argue that he would’ve done that anyway.
By contrast, the killer shows no desire to check on the hidden barrel until he sees some subliminal ads — AFAICT, he spends days figuring he shouldn’t look, and not bothering to look — until the ads hit. Which seems like a somewhat different story.
Well, at the time, subliminal messages were thought to work. And if you take out the bogus subliminal delivery method, planting a psychological suggestion into someone’s mind like that does work, in many cases, to get someone to unconsciously give up something.
Mentalist-style magicians use this trick a lot. For example, ask someone to hide a coin in one hand behind their back and hold out closed fists, and say you’ll guess which hand the coin is in. Pay close attention to thier eyes when they do this-- many times they will quickly glance at the hand holding the coin without realizing it.
Not to mention, it isn’t that difficult to buy a whole 'nother gun, use it for the murder, and dispose of it where it can never be found, even in LA (NYC at least has the east river). Inserting a smaller barrel won’t work, either, any more than subliminal advertising does. (Was it a revolver?)
Same here. I watched the entire original run on USA and became a huge fan of Tony Shalhoub along the way.
But my wife and I started a rewatch a few months ago and could make it through even the second season. I still enjoyed the characters very much, but the plot and mystery writing is so, so bad.
One time Columbo solved a crime when he noticed that, due to the orientation of the corpse’s shoelaces, someone dressed the dead body.
That’s so bad it’s funny, like maybe a Futurama episode.
I thought that was one of the better episodes. Yes, if the shoelace thing was the only thing Columbo had as a ‘gotcha’ that would be flimsy. But it was just one piece of the puzzle, and a great example of how Columbo notices little details that everybody else misses. As the Columbophile blog says:
Most people remember the shoelace clue as being the critical one. It’s not. The shoelaces merely serve as a link for Columbo to connect the other evidence he’s collected. And it’s a long, damning list. Consider:
…followed by a long list of bulletpoints, which I won’t post here and spoiler the whole episode for those who may want to watch it. Click the link to read them if you wish:
I just remember the laces, probably due to not paying that close of attention because I found Colombo’s whole “pretending to be stupid/ befuddled” act annoying af.
I think the answer to that is no, for the reasons given, but IMO this is just about on the right side of credulity for a TV show.
AIUI subliminal messaging might have a teensy effect. e.g. if you can’t choose between coke or fanta, having fanta flashed at you a bunch of times might just tip you towards choosing the latter.
So within a TV show, a subliminal message makes a guy, who is already probably worried about a search taking place, bring that thought to the surface? Ahh…ok.
I mean, Columbo could have just said to the perp that he’s in the process of trying to get a search warrant. But this is more fun.