**SPOILERS** I really liked this episode for a couple of reasons, maybe more. One, the defendant didn't whine about a black eye, but was baffled by her friend turning on her (and then getting killed).
Two, a really great actor (Jan Merlin) who played on of the best rats on the series, under the direction of his equally rotten mother. Merlin plays this part to scurvebomb perfection; I'd love to hear anyone find something good about him.
Three, R.G.Armstrong (himself a character and supporting actor of many very fine performances) actually says what I've referred to before: a person can be really good in business and really bad (meaning dumb), about life. This is usually true about Perry's clients, and I was kinda surprised that it didn't turn out to be him. He actually proves his own point by trying to BUY his own grandson.
Four, Tragg, the wreck, dying declaration, and the fact that they let Perry help trap the defendant. I think that the killer didn't look quite bad enough to be dying, and sounded too healthy; the stenographer should have had to be really close to her to hear what she was saying, and actually taking notes, not just watching her croak.
A question would be why run? Why kill? The mother had said in her diary that she turned over her son to the defendant. He actually WAS Norma's son, legally speaking. After that, she could have made almost any deal and walked away with the loot that Gramps had offered, couldn't she? What I mean is this: she (dirtbag that married Gramps' son) was actually selling her rights to the raising of Bobby, right? Gramps had already stated that he'd had investigators on the case; did she actually SAY that she was Bobby's birth mother? Why not just take the deal, and let the chips fall where they may? All the hoo-ha about a mother who has willingly walked out of her own child's life wouldn't have mattered if she was as smart as she was supposed to be. The timing was just too convenient.
It's not good enough to suppose that Tony and Creepy mother would be cultivating the birth mother, is it? How would they know what Gramps' detectives hadn't been able to find out? See what I mean? How could they have known about the real mother if professional detectives didn't find anything out?
Diana Reynolds (the defendant) had a pretty cool car, a late 1940's Olds; what we used to call a $50 fun car. I believe she'd have a hard time starting it. Of course, the dead girl didn't. One other thing: why was there a curtain on the back of the jeep? The ending was poetic justice for everyone, but in reality, Gramps' creepy wife and her slithering son would probably have found out about the mother, the kid, the killer and all; and then wrecked Gramps' dream anyway. I've said it before, most of the time murders don't produce happy endings.
Two, a really great actor (Jan Merlin) who played on of the best rats on the series, under the direction of his equally rotten mother. Merlin plays this part to scurvebomb perfection; I'd love to hear anyone find something good about him.
Three, R.G.Armstrong (himself a character and supporting actor of many very fine performances) actually says what I've referred to before: a person can be really good in business and really bad (meaning dumb), about life. This is usually true about Perry's clients, and I was kinda surprised that it didn't turn out to be him. He actually proves his own point by trying to BUY his own grandson.
Four, Tragg, the wreck, dying declaration, and the fact that they let Perry help trap the defendant. I think that the killer didn't look quite bad enough to be dying, and sounded too healthy; the stenographer should have had to be really close to her to hear what she was saying, and actually taking notes, not just watching her croak.
A question would be why run? Why kill? The mother had said in her diary that she turned over her son to the defendant. He actually WAS Norma's son, legally speaking. After that, she could have made almost any deal and walked away with the loot that Gramps had offered, couldn't she? What I mean is this: she (dirtbag that married Gramps' son) was actually selling her rights to the raising of Bobby, right? Gramps had already stated that he'd had investigators on the case; did she actually SAY that she was Bobby's birth mother? Why not just take the deal, and let the chips fall where they may? All the hoo-ha about a mother who has willingly walked out of her own child's life wouldn't have mattered if she was as smart as she was supposed to be. The timing was just too convenient.
It's not good enough to suppose that Tony and Creepy mother would be cultivating the birth mother, is it? How would they know what Gramps' detectives hadn't been able to find out? See what I mean? How could they have known about the real mother if professional detectives didn't find anything out?
Diana Reynolds (the defendant) had a pretty cool car, a late 1940's Olds; what we used to call a $50 fun car. I believe she'd have a hard time starting it. Of course, the dead girl didn't. One other thing: why was there a curtain on the back of the jeep? The ending was poetic justice for everyone, but in reality, Gramps' creepy wife and her slithering son would probably have found out about the mother, the kid, the killer and all; and then wrecked Gramps' dream anyway. I've said it before, most of the time murders don't produce happy endings.