No, I think the author used it herself.
Irregardless isn’t a real word?!
This is my big one too. Recent plant cultivars in period movies; new world plants or animals in ancient old world settings; and why do CGI birds have no bones in their wings and are not subject to inertia?
Smokers who don’t inhale.
Wow, there are so many more that I can’t think of right now . . .
Since people actually use it, it’s a “real word”.
To be fair, most digital cameras have sound effects. It helps me know when the shot has actually been taken.
This is always annoying, but in Taken, it’s taken to a whole new level: Liam Neeson finds a cell phone, and while he’s at the airport he takes the chip out of the phone and jacks it into an airport photo kiosk–and then proceeds to do the magic CIA image enhancement–obtaining a perfectly clear image from a reflection in a pair of eyeglasses or something–at the friggin airport kiosk.
It’s a remarkably stupid word, of course, as it adds a prefix to a perfectly good word and then ignores it. But it’s as real as “flammable,” which is just as stupid.
No, I’ll take that back. Flammable is marginally less dumb than irregardless.
There was a scene in a very, very stupid book by Tabitha King that I read like 25 years ago, there are these people who get shrunk down to be like 3 inches tall. In this scene, this tiny person undresses–and her silk dress falls down around her fee like water or something. Uh, a piece of silk fabric, even the finest, that small, would be approximately as stiff as cardboard at that scale. The book is full of the same failure of imagination with liquids; these tiny people drink water perfectly normally, when in fact a drop of water would be a gelatinous blob almost as big as your head.
Neither is inflammable I guess
Inflammable is actually older than flammable. Grammar Nazis like me often complain about the latter, as the etymology in the second link is, ah, suspect; some think it more likely that flammable was born in the minds of those who (reasonably) mistook the first syllable for a negating prefix.
Irregardless is still stupid, though, as it’s always taken to be synonymous with regardless, and the negating prefix is just noise. I blame the Welsh, but then I blame them for everything.
So as not to totally hijack the thread I will say something on topic but…
What’s wrong with flammable?
Ok I don’t like it how disabilities in a TV show that doesn’t normally have it (Not looking at you Numbers and House) automatically means it is poignant.
Case in point: In a recent episode of The Mentalist, which has no disabled characters whatsoever, there was a guy in it in a wheelchair. Upon seeing this I said out loud (to myself…) “His wheelchair will have something to do with this somehow”. Later in the episode we learn the guy isn’t disabled and used it as a front. Can’t a guy be in a wheelchair (deaf, blind etc.) without it having to be ABOUT his wheelchair (deafness, blindness, etc.)
Since I seem not to have made it clear earlier, and since I brought it up (I think), I’ll explain. Inflammable is the older word and has a clear etymology from the Latin. Flammable is newer, and though it’s alleged to descend from a different Latin word, many word nerds suspect and aver that it’s actually comes from people seeing the word “inflammable” and misunderstanding it; they think the in- is a negator. The meaning of inflammable would be clearer if, when its spelling was standardized, they had chosen to spell it enflammable, but that’s water under the bridge.
I’m torn myself. I think the misunderstanding explanation for the origin of flammable is probably correct. But I also think that inflammable, spelled that way, is ambiguous in a way that flammable is not, and given that we don’t want 14-year-old kids thinking that ethyl alcohol is not likely to catch on fire, it’s probably better to use the dumber word. 
When hypnotism is used in a movie and/or book, they usually get it wrong.
I am usually all about saying: If you wanted reality, what were you doing at a movie? but this is one of those rare times it annoys me.
#2 is easy to explain. The line was said TWICE. Once in the old location, and once in the new location. It might not have been said by the same person. In your example, perhaps right before the first cop got out, the second cop had just finished saying “The lab says she was pregnant.”
Of course, the above scenario should be abundantly clear or sufficiently unimportant, otherwise I have to figure out what happened, taking me out of the narrative.