I think we all agree that this is not the most sock-o, airtight gotcha in the history of "Colombo". But, I do think that the criticisms of this rather fun episode have been exaggerated and sometimes unfair. Below is a summary reply to these criticisms, that I wrote some time ago, nothing personal but an attempt to sum-up why I think some fans go too far in claiming there is "no proof" of Crawford's guilt.

---

OK, so you think there is still “no proof” that Findlay committed the murder?

Then, please explain why:

1) Gabe’s own baton was found directly under the elevator doors?

This was a very obscure area of the theatre, gated-off for many years – we saw how the gate was draped with cobwebs, a fact which presumably could be corroborated. So, the point of the whole musical demo at the end – (for fans who just don’t “get it”) was simply that, this wasn’t just “a” baton – it was GABE’s baton. Given to him THAT DAY.

So, the (rather theatrical) scene at the end, is conclusive evidence that the baton at the pit below the elevator, was Gabe’s. And, it was a baton he had just received, from someone who could swear to that fact..


2) Still not convinced? Maybe you think it proves nothing, that the baton found directly below the crack of the elevator was Gabe’s?

Then, you must answer:

What is the alternative theory for Gabe’s very own, brand-new baton being found at the pit of an elevator that had been dormant for decades? An elevator behind a gate that said it was not in use? In a spot where Gabe had no reason to be?

Moreover, this baton was found:

In an area where the “on” and “off” buttons were curiously free of the dust and cobwebs that covered everything else in the area.

The baton was given to Gabe by his girlfriend that very day -- so, it wasn’t something that somehow, improbably, fell into that ancient pit in the indefinite past. This is why the evidence of Gabe’s (no one else’s) BRAND NEW (not old or cobwebbed) baton, discovered by Columbo in this weird spot directly below the crack of the elevator, is…..at minimum….suspicious, and at worst, IMPOSSIBLE (or nearly impossible) to explain apart from Columbo’s theory.

We also know that the baton handle would not fit through the crack in the closed doors above the elevator – the baton could only have fallen through if this (old, abandoned) elevator went to the top and opened the doors.

--

Sorry if this is not all obvious to TV viewers. However, anyone who claims that there is “no proof” of Findlay’s guilt in this episode, will have to answer the above questions!


3) Then of course, there is Columbo’s usual series of “little things” – not conclusive in themselves, but all pointing toward the bigger clues discovered later:

• “The body that didn’t scream”: In my opinion, this is a great clue! Why, why, why did Gabe not scream while plummeting to his death?

• The sneakers: A nice, “Columbo-centric” clue given the detective’s obsession with shoes. Few cops other than Columbo, would have discovered that Gabe was found wearing ill-fitting tuxedo shoes, when his documented habit (per the photo spotted by Columbo) was to wear sneakers in even the most formal situations. His conclusion? As in “Exercise In Fatality,” the victim was put into his shoes by the killer.

4) Last but not least: The Motive

Columbo has said, “I’m very big on motice.” And in my opinion, MWTMN has perhaps the most original motive of any “Columbo” episode, while at the same time it is totally credible. “Jealousy” may date back to Shakespeare, but putting jealousy and reputation into the context of Oscar-worthy ,usical composing is, in my opinion, brilliatn.

Still not convinced?

Then, how do you explain Columbo finding “before-and-after” scores, in the victim’s trunk, for award-winning scores, all proving that Crawford FRAUDULENTLY accepted some of the world’s most prestigious awards (OSCARs), for compositions written in fact by his victim?

Now, in my opinion, the “Columbo” of old (as in “Swan Song”) would have been lurking in the victim’s apartment, to catch Crawford trying to snatch the victim’s original musical scores. But, so what? Gabe’s girlfriend knows the whole story, and it’s a hell of a motive, which Crawford clearly cannot disprove.




Version posted to Forum, 7/6/2010:

Mat, thanks for your post. I enjoyed it. You are certainly far from the first to question the evidence (or the ending) in this episode. So I don't mean to give you a bad time.

But, let's take this opportunity to address the lingering impression that there is "no evidence" in this case, or that the ending somehow "proves nothing." Here's how I see it.

I think we have to conclude that Crawford is most likely guilty, unless you (or someone) can answer the following questions:

1) HOW did Gabriel's baton end up in the elevator? It was given to him mere hours before Gabe's death, as proven by the musical notation on the handle. (Note, Columbo proved that it could not have fallen through the crack of the elevator doors, when they were closed -- so, somebody MUST HAVE sent the elevator to the roof, to make the doors open, in order for Gabe's baton to be found there.)

Repeat: How?? There's a good reason why this is the "final" clue.

(It was NOT because Gabe himself took the elevator to the roof. The elevator couldn't even be run without switching the fuses, and it is clear that Gabe went to the roof all the time, WITHOUT using the cobwebbed, ancient elevator. And, it's EXTREMELY unlikely he would somehow leave his new baton in the elevator, then nevertheless send the elevator down, and thereafter fall off the roof while "conducting" with NO baton.)

(And, as Columbo points out, Gabe surely would have heard the elevator coming, if he were conscious -- and would have jumped off the doors in time.)


This is why the final scene's point is to demonstrate -- perhaps seeking a sense of drama that may not fit the strictly logical nature of the clue -- that the baton in the elevator was definitely Gabe's own, brand-new baton.


2) WHY did Gabe utter no cry when plummeting from the roof to the ground, if it were an accident and if he were conscious? This was Columbo's first clue and, I think, a great one -- reminiscent of Holmes' "dog who didn't bark." In this case, the "falling body that didn't scream".

Columbo immediately concludes that the victim was "either drugged or dead" at the time of the fall. And eventually, Columbo gets forensic evidence that the drug found in Gabe's wrist-wound (scratched by the broken champagne flute when he collapsed after Crawford drugged him) was a drug that Crawford ADMITS possessing. So,

3) HOW did Gabe get Crawford's debilitating drug into his wrist-wound, if Columbo's theory is incorrect? The question is even better considering the drug was not in Gabe's general bloodstream (per initial autopsy) -- so, the drug got into his wrist-wound VERY shortly before his death.

4) HOW do you explain the bizarre coincidence of the elevator-noise being recorded at the very time of Gabe's death (and, RIGHT after Crawford emerged onto the stage)? Bear in mind, this is an ancient elevator, in an obscure part of the theatre's basement, behind a gate draped in giant cobwebs, where dust and webs cover everything EXCEPT (as Columbo points out) the "Up" and "Down" buttons.

5) Last but NOT least: WHO else but Crawford had a MOTIVE to kill Gabe? As the movie director points out, "everyone liked the kid."

Columbo said long ago, that he is "very big on motive". And, I think that MWTMN has a fantastic motive -- maybe the most original in the history of "Columbo". Jealousy is as old as Shakespeare, but to put jealousy, ego and reputation in context of "Hollywood's biggest award" (apparently they were not allowed to say "Oscar"!) was, in my opinion, brilliant as a motive.

True, Crawford managed to steal the incriminating, original compositions from Gabe's trunk. (And I can't help thinking that the Columbo of "Swan Song" would have been lurking in Gabe's apartment to catch Crawford in the act!) But, Becca knew all about the original compositions and the documentation. And, again: WHO else has a MOTIVE to steal these papers?

For that matter, WHO else could have gotten-in by using the house-key , mysteriously taken from inside CRAWFORD's own bungalow?

--

And all of this is without adding Columbo's usual, "little things" -- like,

WHY the victim was found wearing tuxedo shoes 2 full sizes too large -- when he had a documented habit of wearing sneakers even with tuxedos. In classic Columbo manner, Columbo deduces this was because, as in "Exercise In Fatality," the victim was put into his shoes by the killer. And Gabe's sneakers, meanwhile, were found by Columbo -- in Crawford's bungalow!

And,

WHY did Gabe's personal effects include no house-key, on his key-ring? WHY would this happen, unless the key was stolen by the killer? (And remember, Gabe's jeans and key-ring were stored in Crawford's own bungalow!) And WHY, or HOW (or WHEN), would Gabe's house-key be stolen from Crawford's bungalow, by anyone but Crawford? (See MOTIVE, above.)

Also, if the house-key was instead taken by a common thief, mugger or burglar, why was nothing stolen from Gabe's place -- except the original compositions that Becca knew about?



--

So, I think it all hangs together MUCH better than is commonly alleged.

Maybe the complaints arise from director Pat McGoohan's decision to use a musical demonstration at the end, just to be theatrical, but in a way that, as the fans see it, did not lend itself to immediate "gotcha" reactions -- even if the logic is there.

Moreover: While I think the final version of the episode contains more than enough evidence -- in TV terms, of course! -- it's even worse when a bad rap is given to the author of the original screenplay, a terrific guy, a true "Columbo" fan and a smart writer, who included numerous clues in his script, that never made it to the screen due to Pat McGoohan's re-writes as director.

This is well-documented -- this site has not only the original script, but also the "daily" tapes of the episode as it was worked-on by McGoohan, during the filming.

And let's be honest: Who, in the author's position, would not accede to the ideas of a proven genius (and multiple "Columbo" Emmy-winner) like Pat McGoohan?

The screenwriter's original, "final" clue was especially incriminating, and impossible for the killer to explain. But I can understand the practical reasons why it was eliminated. And I do think it is unfair to say there is "no evidence" in the final script...

....Unless someone can answer the above questions!

And remember, any alternate set of answers, in total, have to hang together better than Columbo's theory. Because this evidence cannot be simply ignored.

thank you for your detail information, though just one thing i either missed or failed to grasp. crawfords recording that included to noise of the elevator shart, was seen to been going for quite a while before the shaft noise cut in. how could crawford have started the elevator and been on stage at the same time? Surely if the elevator was old and presumably very slow running, its noisy intererence would have been detected from the start of crawfords recording and not merely part way through.

or have i got it wrong and the interference was purley when the trap door fell shut and that the elevator sharft did not in its self make any intefering noise.

however, i felt columbo, made it out to be the elvator rising in the shaft causing the noise intererence.

can you help me out here? I agree with all other clues and motives, but how can a motive without real evidence have convinced columbo. Surely Crawford was too soon the hold his hands up to the murder.

regards, jimbob.

jimbob,
your point about the elevator being old and presumably very slow running and it not having caused interference start of crawfords recording and just merely part way through is a good point I think.

I will say that my overall impression of this episode while I like it, when you get half way through the entire episode seems rather rushed. this is the impression that I get.

To me, what I see on screen is Columbo coming up with proof that Gabe was murdered. What I don't see is proof that Findley Crawford was the one who murdered him.

Certainly Columbo's reveal of the letters on the baton are not enough for Findley to immediately react the way he does with his, "Aye, me maties! Ye got me, ya did! Arrr, if only I twere still talented, blimey-be. Well, Mister Columbo, sir, I think I'll be a'goin' to jail now, hardy-ho! I wonderz if there'll be a prison band to orchestrate?"

Well, I think he said something like that, anyway.

The story needs that final, missing clue that Patrick McGoohan chopped out. One step down on the rungs of the genius ladder for that screw-up.

Am loving your interpretation of the dialogue Headache.

Sorry to wake up this shaky old thread but I've been reading it, continuing to scratch my head over the episode, watched the episode again with these responses in mind and now feel, somewhat audaciously, I may have cracked this but am very doubtful and wish to sound out the theory and doing this seems better than creating yet another new thread on the same question.
But first I need to state my response to the original responses and produce a fighteningly lengthy post just to make sure everyone understands on the base level what is wrong with this ending.

First the original responces, I don't like trying to undermine Ted's response particularly because he's just paid to bring the forum back online and the fact that the principle behind it is spot on and is still, probably, what bearing in mind has lead to the solution I an currently resting on.
Everything Ted says is right and the notes on the baton certainly prove it was Gabriel's but the flaw I see here is that no one was denying this. It was acknowledged when it was shown that it couldn't have fallen through the elevator doors unless they were open but this didn't seem to bother Crawford.
Nothing bothers Crawford until Columbo makes his final flourish which is essentially this:

G, A, B, E, B, E, C, C, A
B, E, C, C, A, G, A, B, E
"Take him away!"

There's a bit more to it than that which I'll come to presently but that's the general impression your left with, Columbo just goes through it way too quicky.

Now it has been reported several times on this forum that somehow directer, producer and co-screen writer of the episode, genuis Patrick McGoohan altered the original ending to the episode so it ending up not playing as well. This is all well and good but presumably he had some idea of what he was going for when he set the ending up otherwise he wouldn't have done it. That idea can't have just evaporated, can it?

Secondly then the flaw in the endiing, it has been suggested on this forum and was also my original impression that the notes on the baton were a passage from the score "The Killer" which Gabriel wrote. This theory would make sense, of course, but there are many problems with it.
For one thing nothing we hear is ever identified as being "The Killer" in the episode, the only one of Gabriel's scores we definitely know we hear is Corkscrew, which is the latest, and due to the immense change of mood between the pieces it's unlikely we were meant to make this connection. Also while "The Killer" is supposedly quite old no reference is made to how long Gabriel and Rebecca have been dating that might have established this connection. Finally when the baton is received Gabriel is noticibly touched as if Rebbeca has done something wonderfully spontaneous and has not just copied something he'd already done. All this would seem to rule this theory out.
Nevertheless when Columbo draws everyone's attention to the notes on the baton and that fact that Gabriel had received it on the day of the murder he observes that Crawford was "too busy to notice it". He thus implies that there is something inherently incriminating in the notes on that baton that Crawford would have done something about had he realized. Yet he doesn't explain or elucidate on this observation so when Columbo has Crawford arrested a few short seconds later we're all left scratching our heads and wondering what just happened.

This is the problem with the ending and it's really hard to fix, Columbo sets up a question: "what did Crawford miss?" and then fails to answer it. Ted also observes that Columbo has said is big on motive, I think that is a reference to The Most Crucial Game an episode in the classic mould but with the motive, at least to me, being incredibly underplayed. However we also know that Columbo doesn't believe in coincidence.
This is the privilege of being a fictional character. Columbo tells us and everyone that he doesn't like "loose ends" but in reality this would just be tough. There are thousands of things in reality that a police officer can be expected to come across that have no bearing on the case but in fiction there is little or no time for such diversions. So Columbo can quite happily rule out coincidence and this is important for my new perspective which I am testing.

It feels to me now, that Patrick McGoohan, for some reason, ended up going for an ending that was a touch sentimental, somewhat poetic and just a touch superstitious.
In this case then the original observation we all come to is correct and the baton and the note on their own prove nothing it's what they prove together that seems to make them work. But something is lost from the episode that gives that the weight they need, time passes their meaning is forgotton and their significance erased.
The story,remember, is that Gabriel has been ghost writing most all of Findlay Crawford's work for the past five years and, tired of being belittled and not getting credit for this he threatens to expose Crawford as the fraud he is. Crawford panics at this idea and offers Gabriel the chance to conduct the score he wrote at the next night's concert and to score, with full credit Sydney's next movie, in reality he plans to kill Gabriel. He never sees the need to silence Rebecca despite the fact he has shared the ecret with her but there are reasons for this which I will come to presently. However, despite what he tells Gabriel the next day it seems highly unlikely that Crawford would have told anyone about this because he had no intention of going through with it. Certainly it was treated as a big secret we know for sure only that Gabriel told Rebecca about conducting and for this she gives him the baton with specific instructions not to open it till he reaches the studio. He heeds the instruction and opens it when he arrives at the studio, inside is a note from Rebecca congratulating him on his "first time at bat". So we know what the baton is for. Gabriel is visibly touched and creates his reply on the studio computer... and then he's murdered. Before arriving he has got himself a suit and he did actually get the shoes even though he ultimately rejects them due to being too big he did get them. As said Columbo does not like coincidence. The point here is that there is a building sense of occasion here which to Gabriel and Rebecca is his debut as a conductor but is, in actuality and known to Crawford, the occasion is the murder of Gabriel McEnnery. This is just too much for Columbo.
But there is a discrepancy that weakens the impact of the baton and note. Although it seems perfectly sensible to propose that Crawford presumably didn't actually mention to Sydney what he had agreed with Gabriel he does mention it to Columbo when he is confronted with the evidence of the footwear, but not, apparently, the empty baton box which you would expect would be found at some point as it's part of what Crawford overlooked.
But that's the point of the baton and note. It's not just "to Gabe, from Becca" it's like fate, it says "we belong together." it has that some of poetically sentimental edge, the note and the baton go together like Gabe and Becca go together. The story of the note testifies to the story of the baton, otherwise there's no reason for them to exist. It forces Crawford to acknowledge that Gabriel was supposed to be conducting that night. Except they seem to have forced that confession by another mechanism. But that's it's function.

Don't like that? Maybe the sentimental edge makes it less convincing as an explanation, OK try this.
Murder With Too Many Notes isn't in the classic mould, it's more like it inverts the classic mould. Findlay Crawford isn't trying to to hide from being implicated in murder by fabricating an alibi for himself. These stories are usually responsibly for the best, most inflexible endings because once Columbo has demonstrated that the alibi is indeed fabricated the killer has to explain why they felt they needed a fabricated alibi at the time of a murder. Instead of this, Findlay Crawford is trying to hide behind the suggestion that no murder has been committed. This fact answers pretty much any objection you may wish to pitch at the logic of the episode including why he didn't see rebecca as worth murdering too. Once murder is proved, which the baton does by virtue of where it was found, it's pretty easy to indict Crawford over this one because all the evidence points to him. He made a point of leaving the hall just before the murder, he is the only person identified with possible motive and, most importantly, this is clearly an elaborately planned murder and, according to all testimony, he was the only person at the theatre, at that time, on that day who knew that Gabriel was going to be at the studio, at that time, on that day.
Thus Findlay Crawford murdered Gabriel McEnnery.
Sorry for the length.

When I was younger on first seeing this episode I remember enjoying it, it was fun to see Billy Connolly in a Columbo and I thought the cat and mouse eliment between Columbo and Crawford was excellent. however in recent years on repeated viewings the ending has grown to haunt me. I still sit and watch the episode convinced I must have missed something. I even wondered if it had been re-edited before being sold on dvd.I was sure that on first viewing all those years ago the episode made sense and was all wrapped up nicely.
recently I was chatting to someone in a pub and the subject of columbo came up, they went on to describe an episode they remembered with Billy Connolly and said "it was brilliant how he solved it at the end" I nodded and agreed whilst all the time thinking, 'of all the episodes to marvel at the deductive brilliance of you've picked the one which doesn't make any bloody sence!'

I've read through all the posts above, we're all fans and really we all want this episode to make sense but the sad fact is it just doesn't. It sounds like Patrick Mcgoohan decided to change the ending at the last minute but not enough thought went into ensuring that in the new ending The evidence proves Crawfords guilt. it doesn't.

The Batton, the recorded elivator noise, the disturbed dust, the lack of screaming as he fell, the blood evidence & the ill fitting shoes all point to Gabe being drugged, redressed and placed ontop of the elivator shaft,then the elivator being sent up thowing his unconscious body to its death. thats all that evidence shows it doesn't give us any indication who did it. Its reasonable to assume however that this was done to provide somebody with an alibi for the murder (Crawford, Becca, Sidney Ritter or anyone else in or at the concert) but thats not certain, this whole set up could have been arranged by somebody else not even at the concert, 'person x' just wanted to Kill Gabe and make it look like an accident.

Gabes missing door key although suspicious proves nothing, he may have lost it, he may have dropped it off to have a spare cut.

Gabes missing score that would have proved Crawford stole credit from Gabe - The only evidence that such a thing ever existed is Beccas hearsay evidence and lets not forget she had just as much opportunuty to kill Gabe as Crawford did, maybe she made the whole thing up to point the finger at Crawford... surely Columbo would have to consider this possible.

the only thing which can be proven in this episode is that Gabe was Murdered.
You cant prove Crawford did it and you cant prove he had a motive.

Sorry also for the length, I've wanted to vent about this for years!

When Columbo says "Take him away" and there is no dispute, that's what counts.