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
Idea all wet hard as it may be to believe, at one point one of the daughters advocates an unusual method of parent raising...or make that parent razing: You can take Irene out and drown her!! Even more incredibly, neither of the two (presumed) adults present says anything. Jaw dropped, Notcom 112219.(In viewing the episode last night, I realized the daughter's remark is probably an allusion to the song "Goodnight Irene" [see above], excerpts of which are heard earlier, but that hardly explains the blasé (non) response to it. Notcom: ammended 050522)
+ Peter Baldwin (as Tony Benson) remarks to Jeff Donnell (as Sylvia Dykes) that she looks like "something that climbed up the well rope". jfh 15Dec2023
Oh my goodness! After so many viewings of this episode, it just struck me that Edward Ashley (as Charles Vale) has speech and facial mannerisms very similar to those of Boris Karloff! jfh 15Dec2023
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.
+ Speaking of flammability, let's not forget all the gun oil and gunpowder that would likely have been laying about in the gunsmith's workroom. JohnK, 22 December 2021
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
The radioactive poisoning angle in this story is unrealistic, to put it mildly. I am sure it sounded great at the time, but ... sheesh. Thyroid cancer looms in the poor guy's future. Submitted by catyron, 31 March 2018.
+Thyroid cancer is easily treated if caught early. He just has to alert his physician about the possibility. vgy7ujm 05/60/20
And just where does one buy radioactive whatever? DOD 11/22/19
+It is now routinely used by hospitals, and determining underground water flow. I don't know if that was true in 1962. The trouble is, it has a half-life of 8 days, so it would have to be acquired and administered frequently. vgy7ujm 05/30/20
All this is true, but chemically I-131 is no different from non radioactive iodine, which is absorbed by the thyroid. It certainly wouldn't have any mind-altering properties, just make it more likely he'd get thyroid cancer. Clothears, 22-Oct-2021.
I imagine the isotopes are near the stock of rifles and handguns in the stationery store in TCOT Skeleton's Closet, #179. JohnK, 22 November 2019