This whole premise is absolutely ridiculous. Of course industrial espionage and theft are real things. But are we expected to believe that a successful candy company only has one copy of their "top secret formula?" What about the factories that make the candy? How would they know what ingredients to put in it? What ingredients to order? We aren't talking about a mom and pop candy shop where the little old lady makes candy in the back room. This is a corporation with employees. Also, the candy boxes we saw had many different flavors and there's only ONE formula? And why is the Candy Queen wearing a fur coat when she's fleeing the murder scene? Los Angeles barely gets cold enough to even wear a raincoat let alone a full-length mink. I guess it was a obvious way to show us this woman is RICH. Why not just have her wear the crown jewels too? Incidentally, Nancy Gates looked much older than the actor playing her fiance Mark Chester. IMDB says they are the same age, but as we have learned, actors often changed their ages. Was that the reason Candy Queen was so anxious to marry him after only 3 months? She claimed it was because he was the first man to be interested in her instead of her company. But considering he maneuvered his way into a powerful position at that company, gambled away the formula, then hid like a coward while the woman he supposedly loved was on trial for her life, Candy Crush Queen is a very poor judge of men. When Perry dragged Mark into court, her delusion that he came willingly for her was pathetic. This episode had lazy writing, a lazy property master, and lazy costume designer. Submitted by DellaMason

This episode is essentially a remake of episode #6 (TCOT Silent Partner). It changes some of the details (candy business instead of orchid business, etc.), but the major plot points are all the same. I prefer #6, myself. Submitted by Ed Zoerner, 8/29/09.

I agree. I found “Silent Partner” easier to follow and the characters, especially Lola, more interesting. DOD 04/07/20

The jailhouse scene with Perry and Claire is interesting - not a single shot showing them both. I wonder if, for efficiency, they were shot separately then later combined. Once again, Perry manages to lose his pocket square between parking his car and entering the courtroom. DOD 04/26/21

This is one of the few episodes from the last several seasons that occasionally recaptures some of the noirish undertones that were largely lost near the end of the show's run. For example, the scenes outside Harry Arnold's gambling joint and Wanda Buren's apartment harken back to the first several seasons' somewhat grittier, noirish Los Angeles, depicted even more effectively in Episode 6 ("TCOT Silent Partner"), mentioned above by Ed Zoerner. Submitted by BobH, 14 July 2016.

After watching this episode, I finally decided that Paul Drake is much a more interesting character than Perry Mason. Mason gets the job done by legal razzle-dazzle or by browbeating the guilty into confessing; but Drake negotiates with potential witnesses, showing them how it's in their interest to tell the truth. And he never, ever, takes anyone's first offer. BTW, Erle Stanley Gardner must have had a weakness for private investigators: he wrote 20 novels about another detective: disgraced former lawyer Donald Lam. Submitted by B. Cool 7/18/18
+ I have long agreed with B. Cool that Paul Drake has much more range than Perry Mason, whose expression ranges from A to B. Most of this can be laid at the feet of the scriptwriters, and of Gardner, and is appropriate to the character. But I'm afraid some can be traced to Burr himself. If you look at the parts he played, they are all pretty much along the same lines as Mason: fairly serious, somewhat humorless. And, I'm sorry to say, some of this may be due to Burr himself. He appeared on Match Game '76 as a panelist, to promote his new show, Kingston: Confidential. It is painful to watch how out of his depth he is trying to be humorous. Don't get me wrong, Burr is a fine actor in parts that suited his style, and Gardner was right to choose him to play Perry -- but he never could have done justice to the part of Paul Drake. William Hopper's talent was underappreciated in his day, largely, I think, because it came so easy for him. OLEF641 9/3/21
>> I'm going to serve as amicus theatralis here and rebut both of these opinions: altho I certainly agree Raymond Burr was no Dick Van Dyke, I thought he was fairly good at humorous delivery in the show's early years (remember his facetious remarks to Yvonne Craig in Lazy Lover, or his frequented lighthearted banter with Tragg); and recall, too, how often Perry would resort to intrigues to help his clients (think of his coy negotiations in Sleepwalker's Niece). What changed over time was three things: (1) Raymond Burr's weight (2) Perry's LAPD adversaries (3) the tone of the writing (which slowly became ever more cliched, humorless... even sanctimonious). In short, the elements of the show became heavier over time, both figurative and literally. Oh!! but those first few years... Notcom 090321.
+I largely agree--pun partially intended--with Notcom. It's very difficult to be funny when your adversary is the dull Lieutenant Anderson or the taciturn Steve Drumm rather than the droll Arthur Tragg. But Ray could be funny when asked. The best example is his take-off on his PM character in the "Jack On Trial for Murder" skit on the Jack Benny TV Show. Submitted by BobH, 3 September 2021.

Employees at the candy factory are careful to wear hairnets, but handle the candy with bare hands. The Brent Building is an architectural oddity - balconies from the inside, but none on the outside. Can't say I care for H.M. Wynant's attempt at "tough guy" talk. He and Walter Burke have the distinction, of having played victims, suspects, and prosecutors over the years. DOD 3/16/18
++Totally agree about the tough guy talk of HM Wynant. He was in court using slang terms which nobody who was facing time for running an illegal gambling outfit would do. Most criminals go out of their way to try to speak properly in court because they understand perception is everything. HM Wynant came off sounding like an embarrassing cliche. Submitted by DellaMason

+ Actually, well-washed hands were the instrument of choice in those days. People weren't so paranoid about germs, there weren't so many "superbugs", and I'm pretty sure that the skintight gloves that are so ubiquitous today had not yet been invented. I kinda sorta remember that doctors used bare hands as well until recently, but don't quote me on that one. OLEF641 5/29/21

Funny reaction (IMHO of course <grin>): Paul is calling “the poisoning” into the police and he seriously/somberly says that she is in real bad shape, then suddenly gets very happy (and smiles big) as he thinks he recognizes the voice on the other end, and says “Is that you Steve?”! LOL! Submitted by mesave31, 02/16/15.

+Totally agree about Paul's reaction. It was almost shocking how quickly his mood changed. Big old grin, "that you Steve?" Poisoned girl apparently dying on the floor next to him totally forgotten! LOLOL Submitted by DellaMason

The first police car out of the police station parking garage came out without his headlights on. The two police cars that arrive at Wanda’s are different than the two that left the garage. Kilo 1/21/2021.
I do believe this is the only episode in which we see someone using the once ubiquitous Rolodex. DOD 05/23/23
The opening scene is like a class reunion - Wynant, Rockwell, and Archer have a combined 20 Perry appearances. DOD 06/06/24

Perry makes a quip about Della giving up her war on calories (as if it showed!). to borrow a modern term, did Perry prefer Della ..'thick'? This is a joke, folks, I'm just kidding around! Submitted by MikeReese, 10/28/2023

+Actually I took it as Perry's charming way of showing her how silly it was since she already had a great figure. Submitted by DellaMason