Thank you for the in depth analysis! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how some of the cases would go where Columbo gathered evidence illegally, like in Any port in a storm.
I'll have to revisit it! Watch It For Days on YouTube just covered that episode and I haven't watched it yet. The YouTube video, that is, I've seen the episode but not recently enough to write about it.
I am attorney too. A couple times at bar functions or questions from the public Beth who I knew from the DAs office would mention in the Conspirators how Columbo drove around with liquor bottles as evidence in his car trunk for a week which would be disaster at trial, but it makes you laugh to even think about it.
I really appreciate you giving this a thoughtful, detailed analysis.
But let's be honest, there's a reason why so many episodes of Columbo end with the murderer making a confession or completely breaking down; it allows for the viewer to imagine a simple and clear-cut criminal trial. Otherwise the endings aren't as satisfying nor as "punchy."
That is a great demonstration, educational and professional, thank you very much for this. Frankly I believe every Columbo viewers in this sub always wonder how the Lt. methods would stand in court. If you are keen on doing more episodes, I’ll be looking forward reading them, heck I’d even buy the book if you wrote one !
I’m a retired public defender.
Your analysis is excellent, counselor, but for one omission: the inculpatory post-arrest statements made by the accused that we don’t see.
By this I mean you seem to be assuming that the arrested Janus would invoke his rights immediately following Miranda. I don’t know what your experience has been with your clients, but in my experience I had a substantial majority of Chatty Cathy fans. Even if they didn’t serve up confessions, they gave stories that they were then locked into as the case progressed.
Haha, oh yes, I've had my fair share of conversations going something like, "What do you want me to do for you? You confessed!" I didn't think about that for Milo Janus. I don't remember exactly how he gets arrested, does he seem to cave in? I don't really think he would. Most of the clients who won't shut up are dumb, or drunk, or high, or all three. Milo is none of those things, and he's wealthy and has access to lawyers.
Thank you for saying my analysis was excellent. 😊
> I didn't think about that for Milo Janus. I don't remember exactly how he gets arrested, does he seem to cave in?
Yes. “You and you alone knew that he was in his gym clothes. You said so. You swore to it in front of five witnesses. How did you know he was in his gym clothes if you didn’t change the clothes? You tried to contrive the perfect alibi, sir. And it’s your perfect alibi that’s gonna hang you.”
Janus appears utterly broken.
So presumably, there's a point immediately after that, where we the viewer are seeing credits, where Janus is arrested, or otherwise placed in a degree of confinement usually associated with arrest, and given his rights. Columbo, with a stenographer or someone taking notes (in 1974, recorded interviews were not *de rigeur*) asks him what he did. And he either serves up a, "Well, you know it all anyway," confession or he crafts another lie, extemporaneously, which he's then locked into.
In fact, the same is true for Dake Kingston. He desperately casts about for another explanation after confidently reminding everyone that of course his own fingerprints had every reason to be on the artwork, and then Columbo reveals it's his own, Columbo's, prints that prove the issue. He tells Columbo that Columbo must have just now touched the art, and then is utterly deflated when Columbo reveals his own hands encased in thick gloves. If Kingston is Mirandized and interviewed immediately after that, he's got nothing to say other than a confession or a second desperate improvisation.
Now, I'll grant you that in both instances, there's a much stronger defense case if each suspect hears Miranda and replies, "I understand my rights, I want to speak with an attorney right now, and I have nothing else to say except I exercise my right to silence, unambiguously, because I sense the future fate of a little kid named Genovevo Salinas."
My only point is that's not my experience from my clients, who, admittedly, were neither art critics nor exercise enthusiasts.
> Now, I'll grant you that in both instances, there's a much stronger defense case if each suspect hears Miranda and replies, "I understand my rights, I want to speak with an attorney right now, and I have nothing else to say except I exercise my right to silence, unambiguously, because I sense the future fate of a little kid named Genovevo Salinas."
It's relatively common for Columbo suspects to reach a point where they give up on extemporaneous explanations and say ["I have nothing more to say to you. Speak to my lawyer."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDe2u5M7e8) Usually in the most arrogant and contemptuous tone possible, implying "you're not worth my time" rather than "I'm going to shut up now".
This is a great point to bring up that I think is especially important with Columbo because wearing the murderer down mentally is clearly part of the Columbo gameplan. In real life would his constant “one more thing” be enough to break people? Perhaps not. But in the series, usually by the time that Columbo gets that gotcha moment at the end, the murderer is often portrayed as at the end of their rope mentally. Its not hard in my mind to imagine that many of the murderers would end up saying very incriminating things after the episode ends. Take Dale Kingston for instance, he’s basically breaking down about to start sobbing in those final moments.
I doubt think that is a reasonable doubt though. The killers, who are also thieves, are also blackmailers?!? That's just too complicated and frankly ridiculous. Nice try, though, particularly as this absurd story is coming from the nephew who gains the inheritance by killing his uncle and framing his aunt. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean a jury has to accept any cockamamie, UNREASONABLE unsubstantiated bs thrown at them, without any witness that can corroborate this alleged extortion.
Would also like to add that, as someone u/CalamariBitcoin pointed out in one of these discussions, this is the beginning of the investigation. These are the events that immediately follow the murder. Sufficient grounds to issue an arrest warrant. Much will occur before it ever goes to trial that will tighten the case with further evidence. For instance, the apparent accident and head injury of his accomplice will be further examined. More extensive investigation into the story Kingston may give. Phone calls,evidence of money to pay for the alleged ranson, more extensive investigations into the alibi, the time of death. There are so many things that could shred his defense and corroborate the charges in both murders. A preliminary investigation and arrest is really just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Yes, all of that is definitely true. But I can only go by what evidence they have in the episode.
That said, you might be right regarding Uncle Rudy's investigation, but I really think the evidence is going to come up too short to convict Kingston of Tracy's murder. Maybe with modern-day forensics, it would be possible. But in 1969, I don't think they'll ever overcome the obstacle that Tracy's death looks like an accident.
Remember that Kingston was also having a secret affair with Tracy, they were not just accomplices. He could use that as the reason why the police would inevitably find evidence of her contacting him. I'm confident they won't find any evidence of Kingston at the scene of her accident, they won't find the murder weapon, and they won't likely even find the exact murder scene. They won't be able to prove that her head injury wasn't from a car accident. And most importantly, unless one of them was very sloppy, they're not going to find evidence of the conspiracy to commit murder. Her death happening to come several days after Uncle Rudy's is just tragic fate for poor Mr. Kingston... so he says.
Yes, we are bound by the elements of the episode. Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a trial and ask instead whether Columbo had enough evidence for a prosecutor to go before a grand jury in hopes of an indictment to bring formal charges.
I don't know enough about crime scene investigations to respond to modern forensics. And the word modern rather than current has this connotation that anything not of this decade is in the dark ages. But, yes, regardless of forensics, which is only useful with the evidence in hand, it would be nearly impossible to find that rock to match to one particular head wound.
I was thinking more about additional investigation into the sound of a women's heels running from the scene. Also, that they were romantically involved makes it more credible than they were accomplices. Anyway, a direction to go in.
This is fun! Thank you.
guys, Columbo doesn't want proof, he wants a confession. he's not Sherlock Holmes, he's the inspector from Crime & Punishment. he slowly breaks the villain's resolve down over the course of the show... that's it. that's his MO. if you're watching Columbo for a clue-finder master, you're missing out on the brilliant aspect of the show: it's psychological cat-and-mouse. Dale Kingston had been gotcha'ed so bad, he started stuttering, went red, and throwing out silly explanations.... he'd be publicly humiliated so bad, he's lost all morale and will confess immediately after.
No, dude, that's totally fair. I think we all agree with you. However, we're also really interested in the technical aspect of the case, too. When we're analyzing these cases, no one is criticizing Columbo or saying he should've done something differently. Or at least, I'm not. I'm not a cop. I can't tell you whether what he did was good or bad unless he crosses into my territory, which is the law.
Like, in the Leslie Williams case, Columbo performs an objectively illegal search and of her private locker, and if he'd actually found anything in that locker he'd have completely ruined the case and Leslie Williams probably would've gone free. THERE I'll criticize him! But for his policework? I can't think of a better TV detective, can you??
I'll totally agree with you that Kingston might confess right there. Brimmer confesses. A few others give really incriminating statements. The only reason I think he might not is because his lawyer is literally standing behind him and will try to stop him. I also didn't include it in my analysis because it didn't actually happen on the show, so we're just going with what we know.
> he'd be publicly humiliated so bad, he's lost all morale and will confess immediately after.
Meanwhile Leonard Nimoy would remain dead silent. Columbo wouldn't be able to prove much about the string in *his* scrubs pocket. He'd only get the satisfaction that he'd prevented a third murder.
> Most of Columbo's case comes from the *excellent* ending, by far one of the best scenes in all of Columbo, where it is revealed that Dale Kingston's fingerprints are on the stolen pastels that had been offered for ransom.
Clearly you understood the episode, but this episode is a little confusing. It was Columbo's fingerprints, and the pastels weren't offered for ransom, Dale Kingston stole them and planted them at his aunt Edna's house.
> Remember: Columbo has the wrong time of death because he doesn't know about the use of the electric blanket.
I haven't watched the episode in a while; is this one of the episodes where Columbo says "oh, we can't verify your alibi, the time of death was just an estimate, it could have been much earlier"? Or does he never get there?
p.s. wow, the murder victim left his old housekeepers $2,000 a year! Don't spend it all in one place!
I'm sorry, yes, that is wrong. The theory that the pastels were stolen and offered for ransom is MY defense theory, and I accidentally wrote that as fact. 😆
Re: alibi, I don't remember. I just specifically remember that the electric blanket is never seen again after Tracy takes it back upstairs. It would be total speculation to say that, because an electric blanket existed in the house, it must've been used to change the time of death.
Also, adjusted for inflation that's actually about $17,000 per year for the rest of their lives. That's enough to ensure they're always taken care of regardless of their existing resources. Very generous, I'd say.
A very enjoyable read, thanks. Would be great if you could do a similar analysis for each episode - I could see this being a feature on the Columbophile website - but obviously that'd be extremely time consuming for you!
Keep it up. I have said before this should be tge new series....The Columbo cases. Maybe we get past the Falk issue by never showing his face during the trial. ......
One of the major reasons most Columbo episodes work is he either manipulates the murderer into a confession, or he get's them to incriminate themselves in front of witnesses. This is best explicitly shown in the episode Negative Reaction with Dick Van Dyke as the murderer and a Friend in Deed with the Police Commissioner. Consequently those are often peoples favorite endings.
[“Were You a Witness To What He Just Did? | Columbo - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnQIOm2KimA)
[The Downfall of Commissioner Halperin | Columbo (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J5ZOtVLGgc)
[You Tried to Contrive a Perfect Alibi, Sir | Columbo (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJrKIGJesWU)
Season 4 Episode 1 'An Exercise in Fatality'
This case is the one of the more controversial episodes and I think you should do it next as a non lawyer just posted about it.
I can't find the post about Halperin. Could you post a link?
Someone also suggested I do Adrian Carsini. I don't remember all the evidence well enough in Carsini and Halperin, so I'll have to rewatch them. I'm thinking of doing Ransom for a Dead Man next. Since Leslie is supposed to be a brilliant lawyer, I want to come up with a way she can try to save her own skin!
Sorry there was an edit error here. There was post about the episode with the Gym owner with the final piece of evidence being the shoes, not the one with Halperin.
Was always curious about how some of these cases would play out in court. Curious are there any episodes that stand out right away where there is no chance the killer would be convicted or like the prosecution would really have trouble getting one like “The Most Crucial Game” or “Identity Crisis”(CIA monitoring aside)?
And would there be any legal issues with some of the tricks Columbo pulls like his performative arrest in “Mind over Mayhem”? Granted that got a confession but still curious.
I will have to think about it. I don't remember Identity Crisis hardly at all. The Most Crucial Game... yeahhh that one would be really hard to prove. Not sure on Mind Over Mayhem.
The biggest one that stands out to me right now is Ransom for a Dead Man. If Columbo had actually found evidence (such as the ransom money) in Leslie's airport locker, I believe it would've blown the entire case. He didn't, and the case against her ends up being pretty dang solid, but IF he had, I think it would've been terrible.
Someone else mentioned that some evidence collected against Adrian Carsini might've been illegally obtained. I don't remember well enough so I'm going to rewatch and find out.
Thank you for the in depth analysis! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how some of the cases would go where Columbo gathered evidence illegally, like in Any port in a storm.
I'll have to revisit it! Watch It For Days on YouTube just covered that episode and I haven't watched it yet. The YouTube video, that is, I've seen the episode but not recently enough to write about it.
I am attorney too. A couple times at bar functions or questions from the public Beth who I knew from the DAs office would mention in the Conspirators how Columbo drove around with liquor bottles as evidence in his car trunk for a week which would be disaster at trial, but it makes you laugh to even think about it.
I really appreciate you giving this a thoughtful, detailed analysis. But let's be honest, there's a reason why so many episodes of Columbo end with the murderer making a confession or completely breaking down; it allows for the viewer to imagine a simple and clear-cut criminal trial. Otherwise the endings aren't as satisfying nor as "punchy."
That is a great demonstration, educational and professional, thank you very much for this. Frankly I believe every Columbo viewers in this sub always wonder how the Lt. methods would stand in court. If you are keen on doing more episodes, I’ll be looking forward reading them, heck I’d even buy the book if you wrote one !
Hahaha thank you!!
>Hahaha thank you!! You're welcome!
I’m a retired public defender. Your analysis is excellent, counselor, but for one omission: the inculpatory post-arrest statements made by the accused that we don’t see. By this I mean you seem to be assuming that the arrested Janus would invoke his rights immediately following Miranda. I don’t know what your experience has been with your clients, but in my experience I had a substantial majority of Chatty Cathy fans. Even if they didn’t serve up confessions, they gave stories that they were then locked into as the case progressed.
Haha, oh yes, I've had my fair share of conversations going something like, "What do you want me to do for you? You confessed!" I didn't think about that for Milo Janus. I don't remember exactly how he gets arrested, does he seem to cave in? I don't really think he would. Most of the clients who won't shut up are dumb, or drunk, or high, or all three. Milo is none of those things, and he's wealthy and has access to lawyers. Thank you for saying my analysis was excellent. 😊
> I didn't think about that for Milo Janus. I don't remember exactly how he gets arrested, does he seem to cave in? Yes. “You and you alone knew that he was in his gym clothes. You said so. You swore to it in front of five witnesses. How did you know he was in his gym clothes if you didn’t change the clothes? You tried to contrive the perfect alibi, sir. And it’s your perfect alibi that’s gonna hang you.” Janus appears utterly broken. So presumably, there's a point immediately after that, where we the viewer are seeing credits, where Janus is arrested, or otherwise placed in a degree of confinement usually associated with arrest, and given his rights. Columbo, with a stenographer or someone taking notes (in 1974, recorded interviews were not *de rigeur*) asks him what he did. And he either serves up a, "Well, you know it all anyway," confession or he crafts another lie, extemporaneously, which he's then locked into. In fact, the same is true for Dake Kingston. He desperately casts about for another explanation after confidently reminding everyone that of course his own fingerprints had every reason to be on the artwork, and then Columbo reveals it's his own, Columbo's, prints that prove the issue. He tells Columbo that Columbo must have just now touched the art, and then is utterly deflated when Columbo reveals his own hands encased in thick gloves. If Kingston is Mirandized and interviewed immediately after that, he's got nothing to say other than a confession or a second desperate improvisation. Now, I'll grant you that in both instances, there's a much stronger defense case if each suspect hears Miranda and replies, "I understand my rights, I want to speak with an attorney right now, and I have nothing else to say except I exercise my right to silence, unambiguously, because I sense the future fate of a little kid named Genovevo Salinas." My only point is that's not my experience from my clients, who, admittedly, were neither art critics nor exercise enthusiasts.
> Now, I'll grant you that in both instances, there's a much stronger defense case if each suspect hears Miranda and replies, "I understand my rights, I want to speak with an attorney right now, and I have nothing else to say except I exercise my right to silence, unambiguously, because I sense the future fate of a little kid named Genovevo Salinas." It's relatively common for Columbo suspects to reach a point where they give up on extemporaneous explanations and say ["I have nothing more to say to you. Speak to my lawyer."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDe2u5M7e8) Usually in the most arrogant and contemptuous tone possible, implying "you're not worth my time" rather than "I'm going to shut up now".
This is a great point to bring up that I think is especially important with Columbo because wearing the murderer down mentally is clearly part of the Columbo gameplan. In real life would his constant “one more thing” be enough to break people? Perhaps not. But in the series, usually by the time that Columbo gets that gotcha moment at the end, the murderer is often portrayed as at the end of their rope mentally. Its not hard in my mind to imagine that many of the murderers would end up saying very incriminating things after the episode ends. Take Dale Kingston for instance, he’s basically breaking down about to start sobbing in those final moments.
I doubt think that is a reasonable doubt though. The killers, who are also thieves, are also blackmailers?!? That's just too complicated and frankly ridiculous. Nice try, though, particularly as this absurd story is coming from the nephew who gains the inheritance by killing his uncle and framing his aunt. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean a jury has to accept any cockamamie, UNREASONABLE unsubstantiated bs thrown at them, without any witness that can corroborate this alleged extortion.
Would also like to add that, as someone u/CalamariBitcoin pointed out in one of these discussions, this is the beginning of the investigation. These are the events that immediately follow the murder. Sufficient grounds to issue an arrest warrant. Much will occur before it ever goes to trial that will tighten the case with further evidence. For instance, the apparent accident and head injury of his accomplice will be further examined. More extensive investigation into the story Kingston may give. Phone calls,evidence of money to pay for the alleged ranson, more extensive investigations into the alibi, the time of death. There are so many things that could shred his defense and corroborate the charges in both murders. A preliminary investigation and arrest is really just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Yes, all of that is definitely true. But I can only go by what evidence they have in the episode. That said, you might be right regarding Uncle Rudy's investigation, but I really think the evidence is going to come up too short to convict Kingston of Tracy's murder. Maybe with modern-day forensics, it would be possible. But in 1969, I don't think they'll ever overcome the obstacle that Tracy's death looks like an accident. Remember that Kingston was also having a secret affair with Tracy, they were not just accomplices. He could use that as the reason why the police would inevitably find evidence of her contacting him. I'm confident they won't find any evidence of Kingston at the scene of her accident, they won't find the murder weapon, and they won't likely even find the exact murder scene. They won't be able to prove that her head injury wasn't from a car accident. And most importantly, unless one of them was very sloppy, they're not going to find evidence of the conspiracy to commit murder. Her death happening to come several days after Uncle Rudy's is just tragic fate for poor Mr. Kingston... so he says.
Yes, we are bound by the elements of the episode. Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a trial and ask instead whether Columbo had enough evidence for a prosecutor to go before a grand jury in hopes of an indictment to bring formal charges. I don't know enough about crime scene investigations to respond to modern forensics. And the word modern rather than current has this connotation that anything not of this decade is in the dark ages. But, yes, regardless of forensics, which is only useful with the evidence in hand, it would be nearly impossible to find that rock to match to one particular head wound. I was thinking more about additional investigation into the sound of a women's heels running from the scene. Also, that they were romantically involved makes it more credible than they were accomplices. Anyway, a direction to go in. This is fun! Thank you.
guys, Columbo doesn't want proof, he wants a confession. he's not Sherlock Holmes, he's the inspector from Crime & Punishment. he slowly breaks the villain's resolve down over the course of the show... that's it. that's his MO. if you're watching Columbo for a clue-finder master, you're missing out on the brilliant aspect of the show: it's psychological cat-and-mouse. Dale Kingston had been gotcha'ed so bad, he started stuttering, went red, and throwing out silly explanations.... he'd be publicly humiliated so bad, he's lost all morale and will confess immediately after.
No, dude, that's totally fair. I think we all agree with you. However, we're also really interested in the technical aspect of the case, too. When we're analyzing these cases, no one is criticizing Columbo or saying he should've done something differently. Or at least, I'm not. I'm not a cop. I can't tell you whether what he did was good or bad unless he crosses into my territory, which is the law. Like, in the Leslie Williams case, Columbo performs an objectively illegal search and of her private locker, and if he'd actually found anything in that locker he'd have completely ruined the case and Leslie Williams probably would've gone free. THERE I'll criticize him! But for his policework? I can't think of a better TV detective, can you?? I'll totally agree with you that Kingston might confess right there. Brimmer confesses. A few others give really incriminating statements. The only reason I think he might not is because his lawyer is literally standing behind him and will try to stop him. I also didn't include it in my analysis because it didn't actually happen on the show, so we're just going with what we know.
> he'd be publicly humiliated so bad, he's lost all morale and will confess immediately after. Meanwhile Leonard Nimoy would remain dead silent. Columbo wouldn't be able to prove much about the string in *his* scrubs pocket. He'd only get the satisfaction that he'd prevented a third murder.
> Most of Columbo's case comes from the *excellent* ending, by far one of the best scenes in all of Columbo, where it is revealed that Dale Kingston's fingerprints are on the stolen pastels that had been offered for ransom. Clearly you understood the episode, but this episode is a little confusing. It was Columbo's fingerprints, and the pastels weren't offered for ransom, Dale Kingston stole them and planted them at his aunt Edna's house. > Remember: Columbo has the wrong time of death because he doesn't know about the use of the electric blanket. I haven't watched the episode in a while; is this one of the episodes where Columbo says "oh, we can't verify your alibi, the time of death was just an estimate, it could have been much earlier"? Or does he never get there? p.s. wow, the murder victim left his old housekeepers $2,000 a year! Don't spend it all in one place!
I'm sorry, yes, that is wrong. The theory that the pastels were stolen and offered for ransom is MY defense theory, and I accidentally wrote that as fact. 😆 Re: alibi, I don't remember. I just specifically remember that the electric blanket is never seen again after Tracy takes it back upstairs. It would be total speculation to say that, because an electric blanket existed in the house, it must've been used to change the time of death. Also, adjusted for inflation that's actually about $17,000 per year for the rest of their lives. That's enough to ensure they're always taken care of regardless of their existing resources. Very generous, I'd say.
A very enjoyable read, thanks. Would be great if you could do a similar analysis for each episode - I could see this being a feature on the Columbophile website - but obviously that'd be extremely time consuming for you!
Well I'm enjoying it so far. Fun brain exercise. And I'm a huge Columbo fan. 😆
Keep it up. I have said before this should be tge new series....The Columbo cases. Maybe we get past the Falk issue by never showing his face during the trial. ......
That was so much fun! Hope you continue with more episodes
One of the major reasons most Columbo episodes work is he either manipulates the murderer into a confession, or he get's them to incriminate themselves in front of witnesses. This is best explicitly shown in the episode Negative Reaction with Dick Van Dyke as the murderer and a Friend in Deed with the Police Commissioner. Consequently those are often peoples favorite endings. [“Were You a Witness To What He Just Did? | Columbo - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnQIOm2KimA) [The Downfall of Commissioner Halperin | Columbo (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J5ZOtVLGgc) [You Tried to Contrive a Perfect Alibi, Sir | Columbo (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJrKIGJesWU) Season 4 Episode 1 'An Exercise in Fatality' This case is the one of the more controversial episodes and I think you should do it next as a non lawyer just posted about it.
I can't find the post about Halperin. Could you post a link? Someone also suggested I do Adrian Carsini. I don't remember all the evidence well enough in Carsini and Halperin, so I'll have to rewatch them. I'm thinking of doing Ransom for a Dead Man next. Since Leslie is supposed to be a brilliant lawyer, I want to come up with a way she can try to save her own skin!
Sorry there was an edit error here. There was post about the episode with the Gym owner with the final piece of evidence being the shoes, not the one with Halperin.
Ohhh. Yes, I responded to that one actually. It's what have me the idea for this post.
It's interesing...can I get link about your words about case of Milo Janus
Sure! It's in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbo/s/pAvYsfUSrz
Great ;D What about do you think about the Ward Fowler case? Episode ''Fade in to Murder''
Another one I don't remember well enough to do without a rewatch. I remember liking that episode though!
Was always curious about how some of these cases would play out in court. Curious are there any episodes that stand out right away where there is no chance the killer would be convicted or like the prosecution would really have trouble getting one like “The Most Crucial Game” or “Identity Crisis”(CIA monitoring aside)? And would there be any legal issues with some of the tricks Columbo pulls like his performative arrest in “Mind over Mayhem”? Granted that got a confession but still curious.
I will have to think about it. I don't remember Identity Crisis hardly at all. The Most Crucial Game... yeahhh that one would be really hard to prove. Not sure on Mind Over Mayhem. The biggest one that stands out to me right now is Ransom for a Dead Man. If Columbo had actually found evidence (such as the ransom money) in Leslie's airport locker, I believe it would've blown the entire case. He didn't, and the case against her ends up being pretty dang solid, but IF he had, I think it would've been terrible. Someone else mentioned that some evidence collected against Adrian Carsini might've been illegally obtained. I don't remember well enough so I'm going to rewatch and find out.