Warning: Contains spoilers
I love Columbo, and Peter Falk is wonderful in this episode.
But, like some other episodes in the series, the evidence doesn't quite seem convincing enough to me.
What looks to be a Bullfighting accident, is not believed by Columbo for the following reasons:
. A broken piece of a lance, not normally used by a Matador. . The fact that the victim had a bag with clothes packed (never explained). . A small needle mark in the victim, but which had no trace of drugs. . The fact that the Matador's Car was washed, prior to the Victim saying he was going to stay at the ranch. . The fact that cape was not wet, which meant there was no strong wind.
From just this, Columbo then knows that the Matador stayed at the ranch with the victim, drugged the victim, and then set him up to be killed by a Bull, and he had reason to do so simply because the previous day the Matador froze in front of the Bull - when the victim's son was injured and the lance was broken.
Wow! That's a big leap in logic to conclude all of that from just a few bits of unremarkable "evidence".
There is no hard proof that could stand up in a Court of Law that any of this happened...unless there was a voluntary confession.
For me it would be more statisfying, if they wrote the script so that he really cornered the guy on something. Instead I always end up wondering what murderer would actually confess to a murder on "evidence" like that, which is really just a series of speculations?
I love Columbo, and Peter Falk is wonderful in this episode.
But, like some other episodes in the series, the evidence doesn't quite seem convincing enough to me.
What looks to be a Bullfighting accident, is not believed by Columbo for the following reasons:
. A broken piece of a lance, not normally used by a Matador. . The fact that the victim had a bag with clothes packed (never explained). . A small needle mark in the victim, but which had no trace of drugs. . The fact that the Matador's Car was washed, prior to the Victim saying he was going to stay at the ranch. . The fact that cape was not wet, which meant there was no strong wind.
From just this, Columbo then knows that the Matador stayed at the ranch with the victim, drugged the victim, and then set him up to be killed by a Bull, and he had reason to do so simply because the previous day the Matador froze in front of the Bull - when the victim's son was injured and the lance was broken.
Wow! That's a big leap in logic to conclude all of that from just a few bits of unremarkable "evidence".
There is no hard proof that could stand up in a Court of Law that any of this happened...unless there was a voluntary confession.
For me it would be more statisfying, if they wrote the script so that he really cornered the guy on something. Instead I always end up wondering what murderer would actually confess to a murder on "evidence" like that, which is really just a series of speculations?