Overall, this episode certainly had its flaws but ended up being one my favorite episodes for several reasons, two of which were Marian Seldes as Mary K. Davis and Ray Collins as Lt. Tragg. This may be the episode where I really began to admire Ray Collins and his expert portrayal of the lieutenant whose dry,spot-on wit often went unnoticed. It also became clear that Mason and Tragg had a mutual respect for one another, understood and appreciated each other's job, and enjoyed their ongoing cat-and-mouse game. It was here that I first began to feel that even when Tragg seemed angry towards Mason, he wasn't necessarily expressing his own sentiments, but carefully working within the system to deliver a warning of what to expect from Hamilton Burger.
We also got to see Della Street on the witness stand and watch Mason's pit-bull-protection of her. This was in stark contrast to "The Case of the Crimson Kiss" where Street was also called to testify. In that episode she kept looking at Mason for objection or direction but got nothing. However, when Mason's client tried to whisper something in his ear, he quickly hushed her up as he continued to doodle on a notepad, never looking up and not cross examining.
Going back to the character of Mary K. Davis, she was certainly an unlikable person but was played to such perfection by Seldes, I hated to see her killed off. With psychotic coldness she delivers the unforgettable line, "There's no use appealing to my better nature, Miss Walsh. I don't have one." There was also her earlier vicious, pistol- toting threat to the good doctor, after which she calmly turns, smiles at Miss Walsh and says, "Goodnight, Miss Walsh. It was so nice seeing you again."
I loved Marian Seldes and I thought Ray Collins was in top form. Also, Barbara Hale was finally given a little more to do. Not that her character got any credit for her contributions--She never did.
There was one legal point that still bothers me. When Burger asks Street if she accepted a special delivery package, Mason immediately insists that he be more specific about the package. To me, that seems like a flaw in Mason's line of defense that Burger missed. What would Mason have done if Burger had proceeded to be more specific? Namely, if he had asked Street if she had accepted a package addressed to Mary K. Davis, aka her maiden name (whatever it was). But, instead of doing that, for no productive reason he introduces the mailman.
How could Mason have objected to Burger doing exactly what Mason himself requested? The next question would be what Street did with said package? Of course, Mason was trying to get discussion about the package dismissed because its relevance to the trial had not been established. But, wasn't it a misstep to ask Burger to be more specific? Also, wasn't there just as much reason to suspect the package contained important evidence as there was to believe the disks contained evidence?