>killers all somehow have the skills of an assassin and able to kill anyone in seconds with no struggle or mess
>victims never bleed

it's not that kind of show, man

>>213774223 (OP)
On that episode the killer shot the guy, so yeah instant death if he’s a decent shot. He was also an IRA supporter/soldier technically so he was used to firearms.
I get your complaint, but you used a pretty bad example to
Illustrate it.

>>213775605
shouldn't there be blood if the killer shot him? I think thats his point

>>213775662
Not necessarily killers clean or kill on not flashy ways, csi ruined their idea of a crime scene I even believe it ruined criminals themselves

>>213775734
You see the kill in I think every episode and there is never any blood.

>>213775734
>I even believe it ruined criminals themselves
kek, based criminal ruiner show

>>213775777
As anon said air tv on the 70's, can't spook the citizens with excessive violence

>>213775789
No lies detected here

Is there someone missing now?

>>213774223 (OP)
>>213775662
It was a cleaner time in TV history. You didn't show blood unless it was necessary.
It's not a plot hole; you just didn't show that kind of messy gore on screen back then.

>>213776358
If the show didn't make a point of showing the killer committing and covering up the murder it would be more forgivable. However, a lot of the murders rely on the killer quickly killing someone and trying to leave no trace of evidence then making an appearance somewhere to give themselves an alibi.

>>213775662
He was also shot with a small caliber in the chest and fell on his back if I recall. Leaving blood spots doesn’t really have much to do with OPs point he’s trying to make.

>>213774223 (OP)
I don't want to be subjected to blood or gore while watching Columbo.

>>213776859
You're not getting it.
You. Could not. Show gore. On TV.
There's no way around it. It's just an absolute fact. Their hands were totally, completely tied. It was a different time.
Whether or not it would have been better for the plot is completely fucking irrelevant. They weren't allowed to, so they couldn't. End of story.
Since they had no choice, they did what they could, and there's nothing to criticize. You're not wrong, you're just being too dumb and obtuse to understand that you have to have a bit of suspension of disbelief there because there's no other way.

>>213777350
L

>>213777350
what would showing blood even do for an investigation? not like it'll help detectives find who did it.

>>213778150
>what would showing blood even do for an investigation? not like it'll help detectives find who did it.
C'mon man, didn't you watch Dexter?

>>213778150
Is something is there, it can also distract you, the killer can plant evidence

>>213778220
No I didn't, was any good? Might watch it

>>213777350
They didn't need to show it, just imply it. Have the killers cleaning afterward or have the cops mention finding traces of blood.
>>213778150
Could possibly be used to show a body was moved

>>213779143
Probably happened once or twice

>>213779079
The first few seasons are. It's a mixed bag going beyond that.
I was mostly meming though, Dexter is a forensic bloodspatter analyst and he's constantly figuring stuff out from bloodspatter patterns.

>>213779177
Who also happens to be a serial killer

Nightstalker.

Siempre lo estan usando, doug