Lt. Arthur Tragg, played by Ray Collins, does not appear in this episode even though he is listed in the credits. His absence is not explained, nor do I believe he is even mentioned. Submitted by gracep 10/10/10.
+ Ray Collins' contract stated that he would be credited regardless of whether he appeared (and indeed he was until his death). Since the character wasn't needed for this episode (such as when the action took place out of town) he didn't appear rather than create some artificial token appearance scene and make the actor come to work for just one day. There was no need to mention his name and bring more attention to his absence. Submitted by Wiseguy70005, 4/16/14.
Between her two appearances on the stand, Mrs. Balfour seems to have lost her gloves. Another clue the shows were not aired in the order they were filmed - that fancy staircase appears in its last season configuration, with that curve at the bottom. The same structural elements, balusters and newel, were apparently reconfigured at some time into a staircase with a landing that would be one of the most used sets in the series. DOD 06/14/18
I'm confused about some of the distances in this story. Where was Colegrove Station supposed to be located? It must have been in L.A. or just outside the city since Lawrence and Harriet were within driving range of their house. Submitted by H. Mason 10/10/14.
This case should've been titled "The Case Of The Corresponding Corpse" as Perry even asked the question, "How can you correspond with a corpse?" jfh 02Jun2017.
Don't hit-and-runs normally involve body damage to the car? The police found the car based on the license plate number given by Fred Haley. It seems the first thing they would have done is check for damage. Finding none they should have assumed the license number they were given was wrong. No? Submitted by Kilo 3/30/2018.
+ I seem to remember the bumpers and body panels of cars were a lot stronger in the '50s. JohnK, 31 March 2018
At one point during this episode there is a question about who actually was killed. Given the obvious and basic means of identification available even in 1958, I wonder if this plot point was meant to suggest activity that was less than ethical for all those involved. Submitted by masonite, 12/03/11.
+ I agree with masonite. How could the police not record a bullet wound to the head, and how could they mis-identify the body, unless they were paid off by Steven Boles? Further, I think even deputy D.A. Roger Faris was bribed. At 17:25, Burger is clearly displeased that Faris cut a deal without consulting Burger himself. Faris's meager excuse, "But you were out of town, Mr. Burger," is met with the quick rejoinder, "That doesn't rule out the telephone, Faris." Faris says later, "The Balfors don't like being stepped on, and they own half the state," and Burger replies, "Well, maybe they don't own this half." I surmise from this exchange that Faris was yet another recipient of the largesse of Steven Boles. Submitted by 10yearoldfan, 24 March 2012.
++ This plot point of re-examining the body to find the bullet came directly from Erle Stanley Gardner's novel. Gardner knew a thing or two about police work and forensic evidence so I would have to assume it was a fairly realistic turn of events at least for the time (the novel was published just a year before the episode). Submitted by Wiseguy70005, 4/16/14.
+++Six years after this episode, during an investigation of a NYC homicide later found to be tied to the notorious Kitty Genovese murder - a case which vaguely inspired the PM episode TCOT Silent Six (which, coincidentally, also featured Tyler MacDuff) - a startling discovery was made about the quality - or lack of it - of autopsies of the period...multiple gunshot wounds labeled as a stabbing: the premise here was apparently all too plausible. Notcom, 110919.
++++A goof on an autopsy is all too plausible. Here's a question, following up on the odd bit of Burger/Faris dialogue cited above: What deal did Faris make? There was a second trial with a conviction, per the Chronicle headline, not a plea bargain. Was the suspended sentence part of the "deal"? Why would Faris agree to recommend a suspended sentence after getting a conviction? Also, Faris' explanation for the deal -- that he had no case after Haley recanted his testimony -- makes no sense. Why did Faris retry the case, and how did he get the conviction? This would be an explanation of why you made a plea bargain in the middle of the first trial. I'm wondering if at some point the script had Ted pleading guilty in a deal, and this plot point was changed mid-production, with this as a residual bit never cleaned up. OldDave, 7/10/2020.
> I concur; but I would point out the problem could largely be corrected simply by deleting the Chronicle headline (a viewer might feel s/he had missed something but could figure out what by the dialogue) If ever there was a time when a syndication cut could actually IMPROVE things! Notcom, 112420.
Goof Harriet Balfour is seen leaving the cabin with the keys to her lover's car. Then Lawrence Balfour confronts the stranger and fires a shot. That person turns out to be Steve Boles. But when Lawrence returns home he rings Steve Boles who is in his apartment. So how did Steve Boles get from the cabin to the apartment without a car? Was he teleported? Submitted by pauloh1 16/11/14
+ Good point. Also, Balfour left all his baggage on the train. Wouldn't railroad authorities wonder what happened to the owner? DOD 06/14/18
++ Presumably she later returned - after all, she had driven away knowing he had no way of leaving - and picked him up; but would they have had time to get to his apartment before Lawrence reached his house (and would Boles really seem so unflustered after having just been shot at )?? Added by Notcom, 090316.