While I would give extremely high marks to the principal actors in this episode (Peter Falk, George Hamilton and Leslie Anne Warren, who all hit it out of the park), and high marks to the writers for generally good scenario ideas and realistic dialogue, I would have to give the episode only one star in its treatment of forensic investigation. I had high hopes when Columbo found the lighter flint on the shag carpeting, and later mentioned that the suspect was using matches to light his cigarettes on the night when he first met him, but was using a lighter with a brand-new flint the next time they met. But I was in disbelief when the writers introduced some other, much more damning evidence, and then seemed to forget about it altogether for the rest of the story. For example, Columbo makes a point of getting a photo taken of a narrow tire track in the driveway that is presumably from the suspect vehicle, but then he does nothing to compare the photo to the suspect vehicle's tires later in the story (tire tread wear, nicks and gouges on a tire tread are as individual as fingerprints or snowflakes).
Even worse, Columbo's Sergeant leads him out to the driveway to to show him some recent damage to a pillar at the end of the driveway, which we see was caused by the suspect's car during his getaway - but this evidence is completely forgotten for the rest of the story. The absolutely irrefutable points that COULD have been obtained from this great piece of evidence - but WEREN'T - are staggering things to omit from the story of a criminal investigation: 1. The blind man knew the exact time (by his Braille watch) when the suspect car came screeching out of the driveway and nearly ran over him, but no one asked him if he heard the vehicle collide with the column that was within 10 feet of where he was standing, to prove that it was, in fact. The suspect's car that had caused the damage.
2. Columbo later checks the suspect's car, and even after noting that the narrow tires seem to be of the same width, tread pattern and make as the suspect vehicle that left the tire tracks he insisted on having photographed, he fails not only to try to match the photo to the tires themselves, but he also fails to check the front driver's side of the vehicle for collision damage (there would have been bumper and/or fender damage, with paint transfer from the car onto the column and vice versa, plus the height of the impact marks on both the column and the vehicle would have matched. Not only this, but, even decades before this episode was made, paint flakes from the vehicle that were left at the crime scene could have been exactly matched to the suspect vehicle by spectrographic analysis of the paint's chemical composition at the LAPD Crime Lab. This would not only be able to determine that the paint had come from a Mercedes, but that the paint at the crime scene came from the same production batch as the paint on the suspect's car)! Additionally, paint chips found by the column could be shown to fit exactly into the spaces on the vehicle where they had come off - and the same is true of pieces of headlight glass, had there been any left at the scene.
To miss these excellent opportunities to gather such conclusive pieces of evidence kind of knocked me right out of the story.
I can't entirely fault the writers for making such glaring omissions in their script. I admit that I only know these things because I used to be a crime scene investigator. But then again, that's why so many good writers hire script consultants.
Even worse, Columbo's Sergeant leads him out to the driveway to to show him some recent damage to a pillar at the end of the driveway, which we see was caused by the suspect's car during his getaway - but this evidence is completely forgotten for the rest of the story. The absolutely irrefutable points that COULD have been obtained from this great piece of evidence - but WEREN'T - are staggering things to omit from the story of a criminal investigation: 1. The blind man knew the exact time (by his Braille watch) when the suspect car came screeching out of the driveway and nearly ran over him, but no one asked him if he heard the vehicle collide with the column that was within 10 feet of where he was standing, to prove that it was, in fact. The suspect's car that had caused the damage.
2. Columbo later checks the suspect's car, and even after noting that the narrow tires seem to be of the same width, tread pattern and make as the suspect vehicle that left the tire tracks he insisted on having photographed, he fails not only to try to match the photo to the tires themselves, but he also fails to check the front driver's side of the vehicle for collision damage (there would have been bumper and/or fender damage, with paint transfer from the car onto the column and vice versa, plus the height of the impact marks on both the column and the vehicle would have matched. Not only this, but, even decades before this episode was made, paint flakes from the vehicle that were left at the crime scene could have been exactly matched to the suspect vehicle by spectrographic analysis of the paint's chemical composition at the LAPD Crime Lab. This would not only be able to determine that the paint had come from a Mercedes, but that the paint at the crime scene came from the same production batch as the paint on the suspect's car)! Additionally, paint chips found by the column could be shown to fit exactly into the spaces on the vehicle where they had come off - and the same is true of pieces of headlight glass, had there been any left at the scene.
To miss these excellent opportunities to gather such conclusive pieces of evidence kind of knocked me right out of the story.
I can't entirely fault the writers for making such glaring omissions in their script. I admit that I only know these things because I used to be a crime scene investigator. But then again, that's why so many good writers hire script consultants.
Tell Your Friends