Wiki Home
About
Seasons
Episodes
Title Index
Show Finder

By #

The Show
Principal Cast
Actors Lists
Who Is That?
Uncredited Actors
Famous People
Episode #218
Statistics
Credits Anomalies
General Trivia
Location Trivia
Trivia Lists
TV Trivia Lists
Perry Links

The Database
The Office
The New Office
The Credits
The Cars

Media Page

Wiki Search


Wiki Sandbox
Documentation
User Profiles
Changes
Old Site

Perry Mason TV Show Book

Barbara Hale Annex
Barbara Hale Annex

Della Looks On
Della Looks On

Perry Mason Group
Perry Mason Group

Della-Perry Group
Della-Perry Group

EMAIL

Site built with
pmwiki-2.2.78

Site displayed with
php-5.6.32

Hosted at
Pair Networks

CommentPages/Show147

AdminEdit | Hist | Print

During the preliminary hearing, at about 33:00 on the 2010 Paramount DVD, Perry gets the Expert to concede that the fatal bullet could have been fired from a handgun and not necessarily from the rifle in evidence. Thirty seconds later, when Hamilton is questioning the Medical Examiner, Hamilton asks, “That means that that rifle must’ve been fired from a considerable distance away from Mrs. Chase?” Perry says nothing, even though his client is charged with using a rifle, not a handgun. Why didn’t Perry object? Submitted by masonite, 24 November 2010.

Good point about the handgun/rifle. Although I’m not an attorney, I think Perry should have objected since he’s established it’s not clear whether a rifle or handgun was involved—an ambiguity clearly beneficial to his client. Perhaps we should listen to how it’s referred to after? Perhaps Burger read his line wrong, deviating from the script? That aside, I really can’t imagine anyone using a rifle in this situation at all. I realize we have to make allowances for it being TV etc., but there was hardly any distance at all between the roof of the adjacent building and the apartment. A handgun would have been more than adequate. Using a scoped rifle really seems like overkill. Plus it would have increased the chance of the bullet passing through the room an striking an unintended target. In fact, it seems to me that some sort of test could have been fashioned to determine whether the bullet came from a handgun or rifle based on velocity, impact force or what-not. Submitted by billp, 28 November 2010.

Actually, pistols and revolvers are very inefficient directed killing machines. Beyond 12 feet, their accuracy depends upon a very high level of skill. A rifle is always steadier (partially due to being always held with both hands and partially due to its center of balance) and its longer bore gives greater control. From across a street, a rifle is definitely the weapon of choice. cgraul 8.22.12

Mason makes an interesting comment as he and Paul pull up in front of Benson’s apartment building: “The only solution to the parking problem in Los Angeles is to get rid of the cars.” Submitted by gracep, 12/23/2010.
+ Perry makes the "parking problem" comment just after he smacks the curb with the front wheels of his brand-new '62 Galaxie Sunliner, giving the car and Paul quite a jolt! The comment isn't related to the story and I wonder whether it was scripted or ad-libbed (was Burr having trouble or frustration with the new car?). It's also strange that Paul seems to be hanging-on-for-dear-life in the passenger seat before the impact and his demeanour is odd (was Hopper trying to humour Burr?). There seems to be something else going on here. If it isn't Raymond Burr being unhappy with the new car, I don't know what it is. Added by Gary Woloski, 3/28/13.

Legal Marriage?: This was another story where a person using an alias was married under their pseudonym. Submitted by H. Mason 12/2/14
+In the 2002 Law & Order Special Victims Unit episode "Greed" (with Henry Winkler as a suspect) it was mentioned that if one person used an alias to get married then the marriage wasn't valid. Added by H. Mason 1/16/15

Spoiler Warning! Do Not Read Below If You Have Not Seen The Episode

In the end, they conclude that Irene killed the first wife. But it is not clear how they came up with that, or when it supposedly happened? There has to be more evidence than just the note? Also, in what scene did Betty Chase appear? I think that was eliminated in the syndication print I just watched. Would that make Irene’s murder of Betty make more sense?

About halfway through the show, there is a scene where Len Dykes is in Tony Benson's sporting goods store burning the stock certificates. Len hears Tony coming, so he hastily stomps out the fire on the floor. A few seconds later Tony Benson enters the store and says absoutely nothing to Len Dykes about smelling smoke, or something being on fire. Presonally if I had come into a place of business filled with paper smoke, I would have immediately pointed out the smoke. Not a very good plot device. Submitted by PaulDrake33. 20 August 2012.

As to the non-appearance of Betty Chase, that is a bit of confusion caused by the producers. Betty Chase is the name of both the deceased first wife and one of her two children, who appear at about 6" of the episode. Betsy Hale, the listed actress, is a child. The deceased first wife is never shown. Submitted by Emahl. 6 January 2015.

And isn't it just a little odd that Irene would leave her balcony doors open during a fierce thunderstorm, and that the curtains weren't waving in the wind? Submitted by 10yearoldfan, 28 July 2013.

That elaborate staircase set gets yet another workout in the home of Ellen Chase. DODay 10/30/17