3

I've watched almost 18 series of the BBC Midsomer Murders, and I think only one time did I say, "Ahhh, the butler did it" (or whoever it was). Every other time I tend to keep guessing until the end. I also notice that most of the time right before the big reveal, there's a bit of a cut so they don't reveal whodunnit.

I haven't actually gone back and watched any episodes to see if I could spot where there were bits of evidence... but can you solve the crimes before the detectives, or is it pretty much just a guessing game? I'm not asking if anyone guessed correctly or if I personally missed anything. I'm asking if it is generally possible to deduce the murderer based on the evidence provided to the audience or if it is deliberately kept a secret till the actual reveal.

  • There's my friend's rule, Murder By Most Famous. When Anton Rodgers appeared as a penniless hypochondriac lord, I so hoped the rule applied, because that character never gets to have any fun. – Anton Sherwood Sep 5 at 0:32
  • @AntonSherwood that's so accurate for Law & Order - someone famous a suspect? They probably dunnit. That was the great thing about Columbo - you knew who and how they did it right away. The rest of the episode was just watching Columbo figure it out – Wayne Werner Sep 5 at 0:37
1

I'm on the 16th series, and I found that after John took over from Tom (not sure if the writers changed or not), it became easier to deduce the culprit. The number one factor: there was an increasing amount of exaggerated focus on red herrings that pertained to all the people who WEREN'T guilty. Evidence-wise, no, I don't there's any over-arching sort of method the writers use that would lead you to the right conclusion. I just know that almost all of the time, if I can't stand one of the characters, then he/she is surely innocent!

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .