The $100,000 Maddox offers to Doris Cole would be worth about $736,561.28 in 2007 dollars. She later accepts $25,000 ($184,140.32) to settle from Mason. That’s still an “ouch” in my book, especially when we consider what kind of lady she is. The $500,000 Maddox wants for his share of the company would $3,682,806.39. Submitted by billp, 12/26/2008.
+ billp added his notes about current value of money a long time ago and, while it is useful, I always chuckle at pasting the exact amount calculated including cents! A half million in 1957 would in 2008 money be $3.6million...and 39¢! submitted by DyNama, 7/1/2014.
++ Some things inflate more than others. The White Castle restaurant I passed every day walking to school the year this was broadcast offered 2-cent hamburgers and 3-cent cheeseburgers - now they are more than a dollar. Submitted by cspoleta
+++ Money for Nothing why does Perry offer Doris anything at all ?? Her ace in the hole was the ability to block the divorce, but the decree has already been entered; actually, given the circumstances, the offer might well be interpreted as a bribe (tho a bribe to do what is unclear) Notcom, 101421.
1) In the novel the judge's name is given as Judge Markham. Actor Monte Markham portrayed Perry Mason in the 1973-74 CBS series.
2) In the novel, the defendant's name is Kent (changed to Cole for the episode). In my paperback copy [Pocket Books, 22nd printing, Oct 1973] there is an ad insert in the middle of the novel...for Kent cigarettes.
3) Either I'm confused or ESG was or the typesetter of this edition made a mistake. There were two mornings in question, the 13th (when the knife was found under Peter's pillow and returned to the drawer) and the 14th (where the bloody knife was found under his pillow after the murder). In Chapter 21, during Edna's examination by Burger, he says "it's similar to the knife you found under your uncle's pillow on the morning of the fourteenth and placed in the drawer." Shouldn't that be the thirteenth? In the next paragraph, he seems to get it right when he says "this knife...is the same knife which you found under the defendant's pillow on the morning of the thirteenth and placed in the sideboard drawer." But later during Mason's cross-examination he asks "How did you happen to discover the carving knife under your uncle's pillow on the morning of the fourteenth?" After she answers that she was worried about him, Mason asks "You had reason to believe he might have been walking in his sleep the night before?" The night before would have been the thirteenth not the fourteenth. Submitted by Wiseguy70005, 8/31/14.
DA Burger refers to Steve Harris as an ADVERSE Witness: is that the official term for HOSTILE Witness? Mike Bedard 3.24.15
- - both may be called official. "Hostile" is older usage, and "Adverse" is more likely used under modern rules of evidence. But there may be variation between the states. Ed Mahl 9/22/17.
Perry's library would eventually grow to cover the entire length of the console behind his desk. The exterior shot of police headquarters shows a very modern, International Style building. The interior (Tragg's office) is like something out of"The Front Page".\\ Lucille must expect it to be chilly in Honolulu - she wears a fur stole. And isn’t that orchid a bit like “ coals to Newcastle”? DOD 04/20/18
Whom did you call?, Perry asks Ralph Duncan on the stand. This is a grammatical error that will be repeated often throughout the series. jfh 23Apr2018.
+ Sorry, jfh. "Whom did you call?" is grammatically correct because "whom" is the object of the question. "Who" would have been correct if the question had been "Who called you?". Also, Frank Maddox was the person to whom the question was addressed, not Ralph Duncan. Submitted by BobH, 4 May 2019.
This error in grammar is preceded by another: Perry notes "there are no less than three phones" in the Cole house. That should be "no fewer than three phones". DOD 05/03/19
Forgetful Tragg? When Perry goes to see his client Peter Cole, Tragg answers the door. Tragg asks Perry who his client is. "Peter Cole" says Perry. A bit later when Tragg is questioning Edna, Perry says "Take it easy on her, Tragg." Tragg responds "You representing her?" Perry replies "No. Her uncle. Peter Cole is my client." Kilo 8/26/2019
A Busy Day in the Perryverse
- Frank Maddox drives up to Santa Barbara to see Doris Cole.
- He then drives to the Cole ranch (location unknown) to present his "package deal", where, by the way, he is late for a meeting "at 4pm".
- Then Peter Cole and Edna, his niece/secretary, drive to Los Angeles and meet with Perry.
- Then Perry sends Jackson to Santa Barbara, who arrives in time to "find out the exact status of Doris Cole v Peter Cole", presumably before the courts close at, again presumably, 5pm.
All this on the day before the divorce becomes final. BTW, Santa Barbara is about 100 miles from Los Angeles and a drive today of at least two hours; it had to have been longer in those pre-freeway days. OLEF641 11/6/21
Man Without a Plan?? Not only - for obvious reasons - do we never get to see Perry fully implement his plan for thwarting Doris/Frank from blocking the divorce, we never even get a (logical) description of what it might be. He hints, perhaps, that he hopes to stall them, or maybe thinks they'll get sloppy and not act quickly, but as everyone is clearly aware of the 10AM deadline, that doesn't really make sense. IMHO, rather disappointing, as in other episodes he finds some clever loophole. Also, the much ado made in court as to whether/not Frank was attempting extortion, or more precisely if Duncan was aware of it, seemed pointless...Frank freely admitted it in front of everyone when they first met. Notcom 102822.
There seems to be a flaw in this plot. Did Ralph Duncan call Doris at 3am, or not? If he did, then Perry's whole reason for thinking Steve was lying, and therefore the murderer, disappears. (although he can still prove it with the fake photo of her house) If he didn't, then why does Doris admit to Perry that he did? Can someone explain this?
It was Steve who called, pretending to be Duncan. The idea was he could claim to overhear a conversation in Santa Barbara when he was really in Los Angeles to commit the murder. His plan was full of holes: how could he be sure Doris and Duncan did not know each other? Shouldn't he have scoped out Doris's house? Shouldn't he have expected Duncan to deny calling? What if something happened at Doris's house he should have known about? It would have been more prudent of him to call Doris, pretend to be a drunk with a wrong number, then report he heard the phone ring about 3am but could not hear the conversation. DOD 04/20/18
Add to that, if Steve were outside Doris's house, could he "really" have heard what she was saying on the phone inside the house? That raised a red flag for me when Steve said it. I though he would have been in his car, parked in front of the house. And would Perry "really" have let some average Joe watch the house, rather than a trained professional? Especially when Perry says "If she leave the house, follow her". Tailing a person takes some knowledge and good driving skills. --yelocab 04MAY19