I thought Findlay Crawford was one of the creepiest killers in the entire series. Not only does he steal music that he didn't write, he then takes all the kudo's for it, then he kills the man who acutally built up his career. Would it have been totally detrimental to actually let him conduct "Crawford Does Crawford?" I mean what an A-hole. And although the murder itself was pretty clever, he is still a class A creep in my book.

I think we become de-sensitized to it.

We are still dealing with murderer's in these stories.

I meant to add that if you consider murder to be the ultimate creepy act...all the sins before it should not surprise or offend us.

We're taking the clever murderous act as fodder for entertainment. If we remember the gruesome reality of it, the character's other creepy traits wane by comparison.

Is that enough cold water on your theory ??

So if we find our entertainment in creepy acts and the creeps who perpetuate them, that make us . . . ?

What do you want me to say..?.."if the shoe fits"..?

Your point, Michael, brings on much self-searching.

Look, my point primarily was that all the creepy references by Steve pale by comparison to the ultimate creepy act of murder. The murder of course is expected in the "Columbo formula".

I just don't think that the antecedent events would define the character. Why should anyone be surprised that the murderer would have creepy traits that make him/her such an a-hole as defined by Steve?

The fact that he was/becomes the murderer explains his proclivity to the acts leading up to it.

Yeah, I'd never considered a reason I enjoyed Columbo was that the villains most often are folks who're able to maintain a public persona of normality. I mean they are conductors, art afficiandoes, actors, politicians, etc. they manage to appear to be "normal" to nearly everyone else. Quite a feat.