![]() 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. 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. ![]() That is the only way to secure a conviction. 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). Having the dogs attack at "Rosebud" wouldn't prove a thing. 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. It also has to do with the public sense of justice. Once a dog has not only attacked, but killed a person, it is going to take a lot to save its life. The defence would not be able to contest the evidence, unless they had evidence of their own that the experts were committing perjury. ![]() It's not like they'd ever drag the dogs into the courtroom or anything. 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? reply shareĪffidavits would constitute the strongest evidence either way. 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. You say Columbo needed to prove that the dogs were programmed to kill. 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? ![]() 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. 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. It would make no difference in court whether it was "Rosebud", "chocolate" or "Glenlivet". The evidence would still be intact through the expert witness.īesides, it doesn't really matter what the kill command was. Realistically, both dogs would have been destroyed long before the trial. 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. You say there's a drawback to this, but you don't actually say what it is.Ĭolumbo might easily have gotten additional witnesses to the dogs's programming, and even had an affidavit in writing to that effect. And the dog trainer would be a witness to the fact that Rosebud was, indeed, the kill command. Would that have been a better option? reply shareĬolumbo would himself be a witness to the attempt to sic the dogs on 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. 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 wears a tape recorder, recording the villain giving the command for the dogs to attack. What if he didn't reprogram the dogs and took them back to the house, the same way. 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. The drawback of this though, is that the villain did not say rosebud as an attack command, and that can be contested in court. I suggested that Columbo should not have reprogrammed the dogs, so the dogs will attack the taperecorder when rosebud is said. Well as I see it, there are drawbacks to each method.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |