The Lt. Columbo Forum

An area where fans from all over can ask each other questions and voice their own ideas and opinions on anything Columbo.

This Forum is fondly dedicated in memory of  "cassavetes45"  (Carleen Zink),
Columbo's greatest fan and a great friend to us all.
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
The Lt. Columbo Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

Just thought of this the other night while watching - don't mean anything - just one of those things that keeps rolling around in my head like a marble... but, for what's it worth...

Do you think Ken Franklin went back and collected the champagne cork he popped in the office with Ken Ferris? I'm pretty sure if Columbo found the cork in Mrs. LaSanka's apartment, then I would think he would have found the cork in their office (despite the mess Franklin left). That being said, would it be a valuable clue? I'd imagine Columbo wondering why there was a champagne cork (and presumably a champagne bottle with two glasses) left lying around the office.

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

That's a good point, but watching through the episode, there doesn't seem like a time when he could have done it. They didn't take the stuff with them to San Diego. He couldn't have driven back to LA to grab it right after he shot Ferris because the place would have been swarming with cops after Joanna called them after the phone call. The only time he could have gotten rid of them was when he went back to grab his lighter and mess the room. I guess he could have disposed of them in a trashcan somewhere in the building on his way back down.

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

Yes, I guess we'll have to assume that it's what Franklin did, even if we didn't see it. The first three episodes (and by that I mean the two pilots and this episode) show the villain going back to get something they almost forgot at the crime scene: Dr. Flemming almost forgets the handkerchief on the phone ("Prescription Murder"), Leslie Williams almost forgets something (I've forgotten what that was in "Ransom for a Dead Man") and Ken Franklin almost forgets his lighter that he goes back for in "Murder by the Book." I guess they forgot to have him go back and remember to clean up the evidence of the champagne, but we see him messing up the place and lighting his cigarette and then driving down to San Diego, so it seems like a bit of a plot hole. I think Columbo would have been on that right away - "Wonder why he was drinking champagne in the office. Wonder why he had two glasses of champagne. Who was he drinking with? Gee, that's funny, seems like an odd time of day to be drinking champagne." On top of that, Franklin's fingerprints would be on the glasses and Columbo would prove that he was there drinking with Ferris. Since the call was supposed to have been made from the office (when Joanna heard him get shot), it would be highly suspicious for Franklin's presence at the moment of the murder.

Anyway, just musing about it while I watched it the other night and wanted to get other thoughts. Thanks!

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

Fair point, although even if Franklin had been forced to admit he'd been in the office earlier it wouldn't have incriminated him. It might have made a nice additional clue though.

Also, it isn't really explained how the professional killers could have been able to kill Ferris, remove all traces of the murder from the office, search the office, and carry the body out from an upper storey of a large office building during the daytime, all without being spotted and before the police arrived (which would presumably have been quite quickly), and then later dump the body outside Franklin's house also unseen. All of this would have had to have been possible for Franklin's explanation to make sense.

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

Yes, excellent point.

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

If Columbo could prove that the cork in the office and the cork at Lilly’s house were from the same brand of champagne, could that connect Ken to the two murders?

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

It would be a Hugh Creighton-esque case. It wouldn't necessarily prove it, but if Columbo had noticed which brand of champagne he saw at Franklin's house while the host was fawning over the bizarrely-dressed interviewer (and I'm sure he would have noticed), it would be fairly strong circumstantial evidence, at least in Columbo's mind. I don't think it would have been enough to prevent the LaSanka murder (after all, at that time Columbo didn't know about the Franklin-LaSanka connection), it would only make Columbo's suspicions stronger. It may have made Franklin less careless at the LaSanka apartment, knowing Columbo was looking for champagne clues.

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

Isn’t LaSanka the same last name in the prison where Jack Cassidy is a writing partner and he kills her because she knows he killed his writing partner?

Re: Murder by the Book: Champagne cork

Yes, Beck, that was the other murder to which I was referring. Columbo found a champagne cork in Ms. LaSanka's house after she'd been killed by Franklin. If he'd found a champagne cork in the Franklin/Ferris office (which he should have, as it's fairly certain Franklin did not clean up the place after trashing it), if Franklin was seen leaving his house and heading for the cabin with two bottles of champagne (which he was) and if Columbo could prove the cork in LaSanka's was the same as the cork in the office and from Franklin's house (ala Hugh Creighton), then he'd have a pretty solid circumstantial case vs. Franklin.