Thinking about derailing hopes, something came to mind that I have thought of before. I know Columbo ended with confessions (or at least not denials) for dramatic purposes. The confessions made the episodes even better. Columbo killers are for the most part dislikable and I think most people, at least a few of us, like to see the criminal exposed and upset about being caught. Most of the killers in Columbo are just not the man or woman next door, who we might have some sympathy for. They are usually overly ambitions, rich and or famous, or arrogant. So we want to know they will be put away. But the first commandment for all criminals is "Thou shalt not confess."

Some criminals would not have a defense or much of it, but even those who Columbo trips up can come up with a defense, When Paul Galesko found the camera, he should just have shut up. Maybe he or a good attorney could have eventually said that he knew cameras, saw had seen the photo of his wife in the chair and knew what kind of camera was used to take it. He is an expert after all.

And of course there is Carsini who has been covered plenty on this forum.

Sometimes Columbo can only place a murderer at the scene of the crime and can only proof one element of a crime. Those are the murders who really should have kept quiet.

That's what I like about Paul Hanlon. In that final scene he says to Columbo "Wait a minute - you don't seriously expect me to say anything NOW, do you?"

That's such a sensible thing to say in a scene like that.

I am most willing to respond to this question, but will only do so offline and privately so as not to continue to provide the other 'Bryce' more opportunities to steer the topic off point. If you would be willing to provide your contact address, I will respond, and perhaps, we might be able to have a healthy discussion.

Bryce - you can contact me via the e-mail function at the bottom of this note.