Whoever wrote this script never thought that years later folks would be able to play these episodes back over and over to carefully examine the plot. And when we do, we see how they played around with the three guns which are at the heart of the story in contradictory ways that made the "solution" to the murder totally impossible: namely, it was impossible for the murderer to have committed the murder with the gun which the police lab identified as the murder weapon.
Another reviewer here tried to address all this, but unfortunately there are some omissions/errors in the explanation in that review. And the script (especially new elements added in the postlogue) makes it essentially impossible to follow the various guns anyway, because of all the contradictions. So don't even try.
Fortunately, trying to follow the writer's three card monty game with the guns is unnecessary anyway, since we DO know three things for absolute certain and these three things are totally inconsistent with each other. ONE, we know who the murderer is. TWO, we know which gun the police lab identified as the murder weapon. THREE, we know that the murder weapon was the ONLY one of the three guns which the murderer never possibly had access to. It was completely impossible for the murderer to have committed the murder with the one of these three guns which the police lab said was the murder weapon - and which was shown in court to have initials scratched on it to easily distinguish it from the other two guns.
Lazy writing, or just thinking that a 1958 audience watching it once in "real time" would never be able to see the fast ones the writer was pulling? Who knows? But today we can play it back over and over just to make sure we don't miss any details. And when we do, we clearly see that the story has a giant hole in it that cannot be filled by any sleight of hand.
Nobody likes negative reviews, and they always generate downvotes, but I don't care - I'm calling it like it is. Most embarrassing Mason ever.
Another reviewer here tried to address all this, but unfortunately there are some omissions/errors in the explanation in that review. And the script (especially new elements added in the postlogue) makes it essentially impossible to follow the various guns anyway, because of all the contradictions. So don't even try.
Fortunately, trying to follow the writer's three card monty game with the guns is unnecessary anyway, since we DO know three things for absolute certain and these three things are totally inconsistent with each other. ONE, we know who the murderer is. TWO, we know which gun the police lab identified as the murder weapon. THREE, we know that the murder weapon was the ONLY one of the three guns which the murderer never possibly had access to. It was completely impossible for the murderer to have committed the murder with the one of these three guns which the police lab said was the murder weapon - and which was shown in court to have initials scratched on it to easily distinguish it from the other two guns.
Lazy writing, or just thinking that a 1958 audience watching it once in "real time" would never be able to see the fast ones the writer was pulling? Who knows? But today we can play it back over and over just to make sure we don't miss any details. And when we do, we clearly see that the story has a giant hole in it that cannot be filled by any sleight of hand.
Nobody likes negative reviews, and they always generate downvotes, but I don't care - I'm calling it like it is. Most embarrassing Mason ever.