MovieChat Forums > Columbo (1971) Discussion > If not for the suspects confessing would...

If not for the suspects confessing would most get off?

posted 24 days ago by Rainonasphalt (12)
6 replies | jump to latest

It seems the evidence Columbo gets is weak circumstantial evidence. I just watched Identity Crisis with Patrick McGoohan as the killer. Columbo’s main evidence of guilt was McGoohan saying on a tape, “The Chinese may pull out of the Olympics, but they’ll never leave soybeans.” Or something like that. But the Chinese pulled out of the Olympics a few hours later than what the suspect said was the time of the recording.

I find that so weak. If not for McGoohan admitting everything to Columbo after that confrontation, would he even be charged with murder.

[–] TandyMan (11214) 24 days ago

No, this show, and a lot of cop shows, are a bit of a fairy tale in respect to right and wrong, truth and justice. Pretty much all of the folks Columbo is shaking down are very rich and influential. All they have to do is keep their mouth shut and lawyer up and almost all of these cases would eventually be thrown out. And as you point out, a lot of these cases wouldn't even make it that far, with arrests not even being made. Then again, Columbo has a knack for making people confess their sins and that's a real thing. There's people who can do that. He's a real psychological manipulator who wears you down by being annoying. He knows exactly how to needle that nerve.

[–] [email protected] (6082) 22 days ago

Everything I have read according to lawyers is, don’t talk to the cops! You don’t have to say anything to them.

But the killers Colombo encountered had over inflated egos and thought they were too smart to get caught.

I don’t even think their “confessions” to Columba would be admissible in court since they did not have a lawyer present. Or else they could say that the detective misunderstood me or something like that.

Anyway, a great show when the detective gets the bad guys to confess.

[–] aavfreak (3366) 24 days ago

That's true of a lot of these shows. I tried to watch Law & Order: Criminal Intent once, and it was just Vincent D'onofrio awkwardly flailing about telling the tale of what the suspect did until the suspect confessed.

Matlock was the same way. He relied on putting the true perpetrator on the stand and questioning them to "trick" them into admitting that they were really the guilty party and his client was innocent.

[–] Stratego (30820) 14 days ago

"Matlock was the same way. He relied on putting the true perpetrator on the stand and questioning them to "trick" them into admitting that they were really the guilty party and his client was innocent."

That's Perry Mason. Sometimes Matlock would trick a witness into confessing, but most often he would present evidence (or even just a theory) that would leave the witness speechless, leading to his client being acquitted due to reasonable doubt or the prosecutor dropping the case.

[–] aavfreak (3366) 12 days ago

Yes, that's right. Perry Mason. My memory has conflated the two.

Even with Matlock, I'm not sure that just presenting an alternative to the events would so simply get his client acquitted.

[–] Stratego (30820) 12 days ago

The problem often was that the case against his client was very weak in the first place, so I could easily see the jury acquitting. I could also see them acquitting the real culprit. But you just have to suspend your disbelief for that kind of shows.. to a point.