Of course, we don't get the WHOLE story on any Dragnet episode, I'm sure, as they had to take a case file and make a 25-minute drama out of it that viewers will want to come back to after a commercial break. It starts off believable enough, as the 2 officers, working Homicide Division, on a Monday are given a case where a person is missing and 'could' be in trouble or dead. They get the basics-- her business it was certain she wouldn't abandon, her car, her boyfriend-- and find she was apparently last seen by any acquaintance at her boyfriend's apartment the previous Thursday night. The boyfriend is suspected, but he has no record and has been calling her office, and he says he tried but could not reach her over the weekend. Her car is found in a parking lot, but the culprit was really ignorant to leave a fuel receipt, a near-full tank of gas, and her book of real estate listings right in the seat. They begin checking the houses listed and find her body in a vacant unit-- but Friday only becomes aware of it as he walks into that room, while we later learn that she has been dead for 3 days... I get the idea he wouldn't have had to see it to know it was there ["...it was warm in Los Angeles..."]. After determining that her death was caused by strangulation, and her beaded necklace is broken, and the same kind of beads are found in the boyfriend's apartment, obviously he has now become the prime suspect, and his guilt is further suspected when they know he lied about his birthday having been that previous Thursday and had withheld that they had a quarrel that night. But a polygraph indicates that he did not take her car, know where the car was abandoned, or know the location of the house where her body was found. They decide he must be released.
Then a credit card of hers has been used for a purchase the day after her time of death had been fixed. The officers send a report to other big city departments and a real estate trade journal, and learn of a bail-jumper from Phoenix who has used this same M.O., then a short time later he is identified by his alias as the thief of another agent's credit cards. Finally the call comes in from still another female agent who has an appointment to show a house to a man who fits the description of the suspect. He is apprehended with the woman's cards in his wallet, and we learn he is found guilty of the first woman's murder and is scheduled for execution. But Friday says a line here that I consider unwise, and possibly (though I don't know) against almost any P.D.'s policies-- he says, in front of the agent, "You killed a Realtor by the name of Lillie Burnam, just like you would have this woman is she'd found out you stole her credit cards." Would a cop say that?-- tell her that she was that close to being murdered? It makes me wonder just what the trade journal bulletin said about the man, as well as when she reported her appointment with him what the LAPD told her (just go on and enter the house alone with him??) And as to appointments, one scene ends with the offices gazing at a sign in the real estate office that says "Positively -- By appointment only" Why didn't they go by her list of appointments, which the secretary should have had? But, since it was her company, I suppose she could "make" an appointment on the spot and not call in to her secretary, unwise as that may be.
But then... how did she make the acquaintance of the man who killed her, who had used the credit-card-theft-from-a-female-Realtor's-purse scheme many times before, if he did not call (or go to) her office to make an appointment to see a house? (Or, if he did have an appointment, why did the secretary not know his name or what property?) Might her boyfriend have had something to do with it after all? He could> have known that man and set her up with his scheme, after having the quarrel with her, and the man said he was in a big hurry and wanted to see a house, so she, the boss, didn't bother calling her office to make known her whereabouts. So the boyfriend could have had a motive and been an accessory without knowing where she was killed or where her car had been left (thus, the polygraph affirming those things). I just don't think he should have been exonerated completely after the polygraph. And maybe he wasn't-- that's the part of the story that maybe they left out because of time and other constraints.
6 out of 11 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink