Site built with
Site displayed with
From the check Perry gives Elaine Barton, we see he is banking at Los Angeles Trust and Savings at 6th and Main. Perry’s office is (really) at 550 S. Flower Street at Sixth. Look here, and here. So, I guess, the bank is relatively close to that locale. It’s even closer, I think, to 561 S. Spring where the Los Angeles Trust and Savings building is located. See here, and here. The check is re: Robert Finchley Acct. It’s for $500.00. That’s about $3,675.17 today. We also see Perry’s signature. Is this the only time we see it in the series? The check is dated 5/10. N.b., the detective report from Apex on Elaine Barton is also dated May. Submitted by billp 1/1/2009.
+ Did Perry ask for a refund from Elaine since Mr. Argyle was not the driver of the car that hit Robert Finchley? Added by H. Mason 10/1/14
The $3500 settlement that Finchley gets from Bates and Argyle would be about $25,726.21 today. Later on, Bates wants his contribution, $2500, back. That $2500 is worth about $18,375.87. The $76.41 that Robert Finchley has in the bank would be $561.64 today. Submitted by billp 1/1/2009.
Argyle stole $187,000 from the company. That would be about $1,374,514.71 today. Submitted by billp 1/1/2009.
It is implied throughout the show that Sheila Cromwell is in love with Ross Hollister, and Kipp Hamilton says as much to Mr. Hollister. However when Sheila is on the witness stand you can clearly see she is wearing a wedding band, and Perry continually refers to her as Mrs. Cromwell. Maybe she was a widow, however you would think if she were serious about Ross Hollister, she would take off the ring. Submitted by PaulDrake 33, 14 May 2009.
+ Kipp clearly says that Sheila is a “rich widow“ in the early poolside scene. Submitted by katest 4/27/2011.
++ Sheila also testifies about Ross: "Before my husband died, he brought him into the business." Submitted by Wiseguy70005, 7/09/12.
Was Perry Mason sponsored by an instant coffee company? Elaine specifically mentioned that she was making instant coffee and Perry commented that it was good. Submitted by Wiseguy70005, 7/09/12.
+ He actually said it was "it was good, too," alluding to the "fine performance" he also thanked her for. It was more a comment on her credibility than product placement, especially since there was no brand visible or mentioned. Submitted by francis, 5/17/13
++ They wouldn't have to show or mention the brand. When Welch's Grape Juice sponsored The Flintstones Pebbles would be offered grape juice by Wilma. Although no brand was mentioned it was obviously supposed to be Welch's because of the visible sponsor. The point wasn't Perry's response but that it was emphasized that it was instant coffee in the first place. Submitted by Wiseguy70005, 5/19/13.
+++ I think that was mentioned because she had just awoken and hadn't time to make regular coffee. The thrust of Perry's remark was his disbelief of her "performance." Submitted by francis, 6/04/14.
++++ Did Perry change Ties between his office & her apartment? Mike Bedard 4.14.15
This episode marks the first appearance of one of my favorite recurring Perry Mason character actors--Harry Jackson. Although he usually plays shady characters, there is something likable about him. His acting seems effortless and natural, as if he's not acting at all. Submitted by 65tosspowertrap, 18 April 2014.
+ Henry Conrad Jackson (1923-73) has 46 IMDb Actor credits; his 7 Perry appearances were his last: Cautious Coquette ('58), SARDONIC SERGEANT/my Favorite episode, Jaded Joker, Wary Wildcatter, Provocative Protege, Poison Pen-Pal & Velvet Claws ('63). Blackmail was the MODUS OPERANDI of his characters. Mike Bedard 4.14.15
There were a few shows with juries, but the cost became an impediment, so the show hewed to the book's idea of the "preliminary hearing."
Of course, the hearings are absurd in the show; in actual life, a court may have a dozen prelims in a day to get through (most arrests in state courts are without an indictment), and these drawn - out dramas in PM taking days just to determine (a) whether a crime has been committed and (b) whether there is probable cause to hold defendant for trial, would never be tolerated. cgraul 8.2.2016
+ "Cost" is the oft-given reason why so few PM's featured a jury, but I suspect that is something of an urban legend: the producers, after all, never minded the cost of the extras filling the spectator's gallery, even though that contributes nothing to the show, and is not plausible (except for the more celebrated defendants); nor is actually showing a jury necessary, since they can be presumed to be just outside of camera range (though this requires careful framing of shots); and many/most of the books themselves were juryless, even though, obviously, there is no cost at all involved for a book. I think the real reason for the reliance on prelims was their relatively relaxed nature - whether real or just perceived - and the greater freedom this afforded for, as Hamilton would say, Perry's "parlour tricks". Proposed by Notcom, 080316.