Should’ve been called “the case of the three guns“. Don’t know about the book, but at least for the television version, that would have fit the episode better.
I find that both Mr. Burger and his Homicide cop friend Lieutenant Dragg seem crooked because they always want to free the criminals. 😂😅😂😅 It's a good thing that Mr. Perry Mason is on the job to stop these tyrants from freeing the criminals. 😂😅😂😅😢
The movie "So Proudly We Hail" is the story of US Army nurses in the 2nd World War. Starring Claudette Colbert, it shows the burning of US currency to prevent capture by the Japanese. According to sources, several million was burned.
Perry Mason is one of the best tv shows the have one excellent lawyer fighting with a couple of corrupt homicide cops, and a lawyer named Burger who always trying to get the real criminals free it always seems that they've judged them before they even been to court. 😅😅😅
Burger and Tragg seem like tyrants and they judge people before they’re charged and most episodes they try to get their real killer/ killers out scott free so it’s good that Mr Perry Mason is on the job otherwise there would have been a hole lot of innocent people doing time on this show. Lol 😂 😅😂
Peter Leeds is superb in this episode. When I first saw it I thought "Oh - typical gangster style heavy" and of course, that's exactly what they were aiming at as his character was just acting a part! I loved the way his character's real manner was so mild and happy go lucky.
This prosecutor Sampson is the absolute worst fill-in for HamBurger. He treats everyone rudely, and forgets the purpose of a prosecutor is justice not winning. This is the second episode in a row where he harangued someone who had just lost a loved one. He is even rude to the judge and often jumps the gun on his objections. He even yells at his own witness whose testimony actually helped his case! Instead of being grateful, he rudely snapped, "just answer the question." His treatment of Ann was also borderline sadistic. She is obviously a fragile young girl and within 5 seconds he's yelling at her. Prosecutors do not need to put every single person on the stand. The state often puts hostile witnesses on the stand which makes no sense. It was totally inappropriate to put a mentally disturbed girl on the stand. We saw the result of his mistake when Ann tried to commit suicide. Sampson should have been held in contempt for his treatment of pretty much everyone in the courtroom. If he was trying to be the replacement for William Tallman he went about it all wrong. He was terrible and completely unlikable. Also, the idea that he withheld pertinent information about witnesses (a possible suspect who was wanted for manslaughter) seemed at the very least to be misconduct. He said it had no bearing on the case, which was totally ridiculous. Why would he hide that fact from Perry? Don't you want to find the murderer? These days lawyers must share all evidence with one another so there's very little surprise. In PM, the state often withholds evidence from Perry and he is surprised in court. Seems to miss the point of a fair trial. Everyone should be privy to all evidence so they can deal with it accordingly. At least Burger seems to actually care about justice. This guy Sampson is like a lot of prosecutors today. He just wants to convict someone, anyone to keep his win/loss ratio up. Even though the father was not the murderer, he was the real villain in this case. His skirt chasing hurt his daughter over and over. His solution was to marry this gold digger sooner rather than putting it off. What a selfish ass he was.
Another awful Burger replacement grandstanding and chewing up the scenery in hopes of being hired on full-time. His snarky comments to Perry did not endear him to the audience. When Perry asks to see a piece of evidence, he makes a rude comment about how looking at it won't arrest evidence. Why didn't the judge tap his pen and tell him to cut the sh!t? But the main problem with the DA was that his entire case against Donna was circumstantial. That's obviously a writing issue, but the way in which the DA presented his case was all in the hands of the actor. "We found your fingerprints in the decedent's car. A-ha!" "We found a tissue with your lipstick. A-HA! "He literally held up the bracelet given to Donna and waved it back and forth in front of the jury as though it was a video of her committing the murder. The prosecutor acted shocked when he learned that the dead guy purchased a car and paid Donna's rent. The wife testified that David had taken care of Donna since her parents died. What did the prosecutor think that meant? Everything David bought her was in her name so none of it was a motive for murder! Why didn't the judge or Perry tell this guy that finding evidence of the defendant having been seen with the dead guy was not evidence of murder? She was his protege. They spent a lot of time together. Even the story about her having been in love with him wasn't proven. The DA's poor treatment of David's wife should have at least garnered a pen tap by the judge. She was described as a hostile witness, but she was also a woman who had just lost her husband. If the state is working on behalf of the people, don't they have a responsibility to treat her with kid gloves or at least with some respect? Incidentally, why do they insist on putting hostile witnesses on the stand? Is your case so thin that you can't find anyone else willing to testify? Either way, the whole case was beyond flimsy. When Perry tells the wife that the police don't arrest a person unless they have solid evidence I nearly spit out my drink. They certainly do! At least in this show.
Lots of very overdramatic and unlikable characters in this episode. Lisa the overdramatic bigamist, the actress with the fake beauty mark by her eye and of course Gerry the wheelchair-bound circus owner. Gerry showed himself to be a coward from the first moment we saw him. Women do not like men who openly cower in fear for any reason. Gerry was afraid of big cats (despite his part ownership in a circus that featured many of them), stood there frozen while he was mauled by a cat, screamed in terror when the cats got loose again, and then became hysterical in court at the memory of the loose cats. My distaste for Gerry's cowardice grew with every scene. Lisa opening the cats' cages made no sense even if she was drunk. She acted foolish and childlike throughout. The explanation for why she didn't seek a divorce or anulment before marrying Gerry was flimsy and made little sense. If she still loved Felix, making him believe she had committed bigamy would not prove that love. I was happy when she stood up in court and let Gerry know she was actually married to Felix. Maybe Gerry will learn a lesson about being a wimp in prison. Plot of this episode was also filled with a lot of unexplainable holes and errors. Felix was acting as the "treasurer" in collecting the money Gerry needed to buy out Curtis. Why on Earth did they NEED a treasurer? Why wouldn't they just give the money to Gerry directly? It was going to him anyway and wouldn't it have been easier to let him collect the money so he knows where he stands? This was an example of a story element added to service other plot elements. It made very little sense and bore no relationship to reality. At one point, Lisa refers to her husband as Franklin. What wife would call her husband by his last name? When Lisa said she was not a bigamist because she had a friend perform her second wedding ceremony this didn't make sense either. Marriage is about more than the ceremony. Wouldn't Gerry have gone to get a marriage license? Or was he so dumb that he just took Lisa's word for it? Just sloppy writing in this episode.
The state reached an all-time low with their prosecution of Lorraine Kendall for the murder of Stokes. They admitted that the murder weapon belonged to the victim, that there was a struggle, and that Lorraine's brother apparently paid blackmail to Stokes on her behalf. At best this looked like self-defense, not murder. This show's court cases often rely on circumstantial evidence that points rather obviously to one person. Then Mason does some actual detective work and finds the real murderer. But in this case, I had a hard time seeing why Lorraine was even arrested. Who would have their brother pay blackmail money only to go and meet Stokes again without a weapon, pay him again, and then struggle and kill him? Clearly she didn't show up there to kill him so how can they justify charging her with murder? The only evidence they had that the brother paid blackmail money on Lorraine's behalf was his own testimony. Seems like as thorough as Tragg normally is, wouldn't he investigate this further? This entire case hinged on suspicion and not much else. However, Lorraine was very unlikable. What mother would think it wise to keep her son's father from him and then contribute to locking him up for murder when she suspected he wasn't guilty? Time and again she showed herself to be a bad mother. From taking Jimmy away in the dead of night, refusing to answer when he suspected something was wrong, lying about who his father was, putting his father in prison, and then trying to keep her murder trial from him until Mason forces the issue? Did she not realize this boy would get older and have questions about his family's past? Fast forward 20 years and he would probably want nothing to do with his mother who cloaks her own selfishness in supposed protection of her kid.
Yet another in a long line of unlikable substitute prosecutors. By this point, it's become pretty clear that the show producer Gail Patrick was deliberately casting hateable actors to replace Hamilton Burger in protest against William Tallman's firing. It's the only explanation for the cavalcade of snappish, rude, irritable, pompous, greasy weasels overdosing on Bryl-cream every week. Every one of them either grunts their lines between clenched teeth or snaps at they Perry and the judge. In the previous episode the prosecutor tried to tell the judge how to run his courtroom! Patrick must have been doing this on purpose to drum up support for the reversal of Tallman's firing. And thank goodness for that! These guys are intolerable!
Love this show and once again another great episode. However, this episode shows exactly why policing rules were changed. Tragg is able to enter people's homes without serving a warrant even when he doesn't have exact proof of their involvement. He always gets the search warrant on the flimsiest of evidence. What judge is signing off on these warrants? The constitution protects against unlawful search and seizure but not in the world of Perry Mason. Tragg also refuses to allow Perry to accompany his client for questioning. So the police can elicit a confession or other incriminating evidence behind closed doors or protection for the suspect. The Miranda case was ruled upon in the mid-60s so there's no rule about having an attorney present for questioning yet. It's no wonder the police and Burger always get it wrong. They take the first suspect they see and try to convict him. Watching this in the 21st century, it's strange to see the ways in which suspects' rights are trampled upon by the police. Another thing we see is how the police have access to things they would not be able to access today. Technology is better now but apparently in 1960 they were smarter or more intuitive. They always criticize Perry for his court antics, but he also always finds the guilty party. Why isn't Burger or Tragg criticized for arresting innocent people and ruining their lives?
This episode is almost ruined by the awful hysterics of Anne Benton as Trudy Holbrook. She is supposed to be an 18-year old girl, but behaves like a 5 year old through most of the episode. Benton has two acting styles: hysterical and downright unhinged. Her reaction to most everything is to cry hysterically (and phonily) or to behave as though she had a head injury. When she finds out that her real father might not be who she thought, she begins screaming and crying and throws herself down on the courtroom table. Not sure if Gardner wrote this reaction into his original story, but the episode didn't develop it enough. She had known the first man claiming to be her father for a very short time. She behaved as though he had raised her from birth and she was just finding out he might not be her dad. There was really no reason for her to be so attached to him. The episode made it seem like anyone who got there first claiming to be her dad might have elicited the same reaction. In fact, we saw that she suspected he was not legit on more than one occasion. He didn't remember key details about the house or her mother. She even comments on how strange his selective memory is. If the episode showed us her suspicions, then why would she react so hysterically to finding out that he might not be her dad? Wasn't the point that she found her real father no matter who he was? I chalk this up to Benton's poor acting. She behaved like an extra trying to get the camera to notice her. (If I'm not moving, crying, screaming, I don't exist). I enjoyed the episode, but did not enjoy the casting choice for Trudy. Even Raymond Burr seemed like he thought she was a little much. At one point she begins her crying bit and we see a flash of annoyance run across his face. It must have taken an incredible amount of control not to slap some sense into her.
Don't bother with this episode or any other one unless you enjoy hearing a ratchet jaw telling you what you can see on your screen! A total waste of effort;
Just saw him in another episode, "The Case of the Angry Astronaut", as Major General Brand, but i`ll always remember him as the voice of Mr. Waternoose in Monsters Inc.
Thanks for the pod. Looking for some insight-I started watching Perry for the first time a few months ago (it’s May 2023, for reference) on Paramount Plus. I generally stay away from legal dramas but started watching for some film noir nostalgia. And, now, I absolutely love this series. Anyway, this particular episode-Jaded Joker-is missing. Any guesses as to why the streaming service is not showing this particular one? I’m thinking about buying the DVD. This one sounds interesting. Thanks again.
