This is something else I have always questioned about this episode:

Suppose the murderer had been a hearing murderer. He pushed the victim in and he heard the machine go off. However, he really needs this murder to look like an accident because he would become the most obvious suspect if it were declared a murder case. Wouldn't turning the machine back on make an "accident" explanation almost impossible?

I suppose it's possible that the police may have accepted the scenario without looking into it very far and may never have made the connection about the safety feature (and even Columbo only discovered it by coincidence). But is it entirely logical to assume that had the murderer known the machine was off, he definitely would have turned it back on?

Would you have turned it back on? (assuming you knew it was off, knew how to turn it back on, and had enough time to do so without being noticed by one of the workmen) I'm not sure if I would have.

Well E, you sure have got me confused. I'm gonna go talk to my cousin at the community junior college. He teaches logic out there. Maybe you've heard of him. He just published a book a few months ago....

Sorry if I confused you.

I guess what I am trying to say is Clayton needs this murder to look like an accident. Had he heard the machine go off and turned it back on, wouldn't that have looked really suspicious?

The whole point of the safety feature is to prevent people from getting ground up if they accidentally fall in. If somebody falls in, the machine stops. The only way they could get ground up is if somebody else turns the machine on.

If Clayton turned the machine back on, wouldn't everybody know it was murder?

Yes.

But it wasn't me who was confused. It was the looo-tenant.

My dialagoes are sometimes veiled Columbo parodies.

Very clever! I see it now.

And I meant to say, Sorry if I confused you, lieutenant.

That's OK sir. I could never do some of what you do !