MovieChat Forums > Columbo (1971) Discussion > Question about the How to Dial a Murder ...

Question about the How to Dial a Murder episode. SPOILER

posted 9 years ago by RynoII
16 replies | jump to latest

The dogs were programmed to kill someone, when the word 'rosebud' was said to them.

When the villain ordered the dogs to kill Columbo by saying that word, the dogs licked Columbo and showed him affection instead, since he had them reprogrammed. But why did he have them reprogrammed?

The fact that the dogs would kill based on the villain saying that word from the tape recorder, was evidence, and by reprogramming them, he is getting rid of evidence, that could be used in the case. The most crucial evidence of all really.

What do you think?

[–] Dagwoodie 9 years ago

Good question. Perhaps it was because in order to seal his case, he needed the owner of the dogs to attempt to issue the command, in order to prove that he was responsible for the original programming/training.

[–] rosarypliers 9 years ago

I don't think the dogs would have been accepted as evidence in court, anyway.

You may cross-examine.

[–] Dagwoodie 9 years ago

You may cross-examine.

 Nicely played.

[–] RynoII 9 years ago

If the dogs were in cages, and killed on the command word though, wouldn't they be accepted?

But if Columbo needed the villain to give the command, and this was his plan, why didn't he have other officers watching, but hidden?

Or why didn't he secretly audio record it or something?

Cause all he has is his word against the suspects, and I thought that having the dogs in court, would actually be more accurate, then reprogramming them, and then, having the court take the cop's word for it.

[–] Dagwoodie 9 years ago

I don't have an answer. My thinking was that he needed the killer to give himself away by having him deliberately give the command, instead of having been taped at a moment when he just happened to say the word. There's a lot of artistic license taken in many of these episodes.

How about, knowing that the dogs had been re-programmed and would now become very affectionate and smother him with doggy licks and kisses (which well-trained dogs would never do to a stranger otherwise), he can now have the police lab swab his cheeks and verify that the DNA is from the two dogs?



[–] cujokay 9 years ago

Cause all he has is his word against the suspects, and I thought that having the dogs in court, would actually be more accurate, then reprogramming them, and then, having the court take the cop's word for it.

The lady that deprogrammed them would be a valid witness I would think. Surely the court would accept her as an expert in the field, don't you think?

[–] duckyslattery 9 years ago

True but the villain could refuse to give the command in court. The smoking gun is the tape recording.

Of course if all else fails, Columbo could have them programmed back.

[–] Dagwoodie 9 years ago

I'm not so sure I agree. Since the word being used on the tape recorder is merely part of a conversation and not intended as a direct command to the dogs. Maybe Columbo still had to have evidence that the killer himself knew the command and was responsible for the training. While one may be able to show that the dogs had been trained to attack on cue, one would still need conclusive proof that the dogs' owner either trained them himself or had knowledge of the specific cue, and triggered the attack.

[–] duckyslattery 9 years ago

True to the outside observer the dogs could have gone nuts randomly.

[–] lanceus 9 years ago

Would it matter that the dog trainer that Columbo went to would be able to testify that Rosebud was the kill command?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 9 years ago

Well as I see it, there are drawbacks to each method.

I suggested that Columbo should not have reprogrammed the dogs, so the dogs will attack the taperecorder when rosebud is said. The drawback of this though, is that the villain did not say rosebud as an attack command, and that can be contested in court.

Reprogramming the dogs means that Columbo can trick the villain into giving the command, but now, no one was around to see it other than Columbo, and the dogs now kiss instead of kill on the command, so the evidence of the command being a murder weapon is somewhat gone now.

Perhaps Columbo needed a third option. What if he didn't reprogram the dogs and took them back to the house, the same way... He then wears a tape recorder, recording the villain giving the command for the dogs to attack. The villain gives the command, the dogs actually attempt to kill Columbo, and Columbo pulls out a tranquilizer pistol, and hopefully nails them both before they can kill him.

He then now has the villain giving the command on tape, and the dogs are not reprogrammed so he can play the attack back in court, with the dogs in cages, and the dogs will actually attack on the command as evidence now.

Would that have been a better option?

[–] garyb-84741 8 years ago

A tranquilizer pistol?! If he could hit the two fast dogs at all it would take time to take effect and have several severe bites by then!

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Reprogramming the dogs means that Columbo can trick the villain into giving the command, but now, no one was around to see it other than Columbo, and the dogs now kiss instead of kill on the command, so the evidence of the command being a murder weapon is somewhat gone now.

Columbo would himself be a witness to the attempt to sic the dogs on him. And the dog trainer would be a witness to the fact that Rosebud was, indeed, the kill command. You say there's a drawback to this, but you don't actually say what it is.

Columbo might easily have gotten additional witnesses to the dogs's programming, and even had an affidavit in writing to that effect. It would never have been necessary to get the dogs into the courtroom, even if they had not been reprogrammed: an expert witness would have been called to verify whatever facts needed to be establish about the dogs, so it would never have been necessary that the dogs have that programming at the court date. Realistically, both dogs would have been destroyed long before the trial. The evidence would still be intact through the expert witness.

Besides, it doesn't really matter what the kill command was. It would make no difference in court whether it was "Rosebud", "chocolate" or "Glenlivet". The only thing Columbus needed to prove was that the dogs had been programmed to kill, regardless of what word was actually used as kill command.

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

That's true, but sine the dogs programming is evidence, the evidence can now not be contested by the defense, and it's weak evidence since it only exists in affidavits, and from witness testimony, rather than being actual evidence that can be contested, if that makes sense.

You say that realistically both dogs would have been destroyed long before the trial, but wouldn't the dog trainer come forth and say she reprogrammed them, and therefore, there is no cause to destroy them?

You say Columbo needed to prove that the dogs were programmed to kill. I still kind of feel like showing a jury the dogs attack a tape recorder that says Rosebud, would still be more effective, than just saying that he saw the defendant give the kill command.

If the defendant giving the kill command wasn't necessary to prove the case, cause the dog trainer and other witnesses could prove it, then why did Columbo bother to go into the villain's house, with his dogs, and bait him into giving the kill command?

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

That's true, but sine the dogs programming is evidence, the evidence can now not be contested by the defense, and it's weak evidence since it only exists in affidavits, and from witness testimony, rather than being actual evidence that can be contested, if that makes sense.

Affidavits would constitute the strongest evidence either way. It's not like they'd ever drag the dogs into the courtroom or anything. The defence would not be able to contest the evidence, unless they had evidence of their own that the experts were committing perjury.

You say that realistically both dogs would have been destroyed long before the trial, but wouldn't the dog trainer come forth and say she reprogrammed them, and therefore, there is no cause to destroy them?

Once a dog has not only attacked, but killed a person, it is going to take a lot to save its life. It also has to do with the public sense of justice.

You say Columbo needed to prove that the dogs were programmed to kill. I still kind of feel like showing a jury the dogs attack a tape recorder that says Rosebud, would still be more effective, than just saying that he saw the defendant give the kill command.

Why would that be more effective? No one knows what the victim said over the phone - the kill word might as well have been "popcorn" for all the jury knows. Having the dogs attack at "Rosebud" wouldn't prove a thing. What would constitute solid evidence, however, is if it had been recorded that they attacked on a specific word before the reprogramming, combined with Columbo's testimony that the suspect issued that very command to the dogs to attack Columbo (a plot hole here is why he would say "Rosebud" when the dogs were trained to attack the person who said "Rosebud" - pointing at someone wouldn't make a difference). That is the only way to secure a conviction. Not reprogramming the dogs and having them attack a tape recorder would prove nothing, because then you would need to prove that the victim said the kill word in their presence. With Columbo's trap, attempted murder could be proven, which in turn would more than imply that Columbo's deductions about the murder had been correct.

If the defendant giving the kill command wasn't necessary to prove the case, cause the dog trainer and other witnesses could prove it, then why did Columbo bother to go into the villain's house, with his dogs, and bait him into giving the kill command?

Because without this trap, the defence could still argue that the dogs attacked for no reason.