Viewers of Columbo Season 1 could scarcely have been better treated. Every three weeks or so, when the Mystery Movie Wheel circled back to the lovable Lieutenant, they were virtually guaranteed not only a gripping mystery, but an A-List star of the day as Peter Falk’s chief antagonist.
That all changed on 15 December 1971, when Columbo was pitted against a virtual unknown for the first time as Lady in Waiting aired. The actress in question was Susan Clark – a capable performer in a number of small screen roles up to then, but hardly a name to set pulses racing.
So how did the episode compare with the sky-high standards of Season 1, and how did Clark cut the mustard against Cassidy, Culp and the cadre of exceptional villains we’ve met up to now? You’ll only find out by forging bravely on…
Dramatis personae
Lieutenant Columbo: Peter Falk
Beth Chadwick: Susan Clark
Peter Hamilton: Leslie Nielsen
Mrs Chadwick: Jessie Royce Landis
Bryce Chadwick: Richard Anderson
Directed by: Norman Lloyd
Written by: Steven Bochco
Score by: Billy Goldenberg
Episode synopsis – Columbo Lady in Waiting
Downtrodden Beth Chadwick is fed up of having her life governed by despotic, interfering older brother Bryce, the head of the ultra-successful family advertising agency, so decides to do something about it.
Bryce has taken over from where their late father left off – oppressing Beth and refusing to let her live her own life, even as far as intervening with potential suitors. But he oversteps the mark when he pens a poison letter to Beth’s current squeeze – company lawyer Peter Hamilton and threatens to sack him if he doesn’t leave Beth alone.
Incensed, Beth puts a cunning plan to rid herself of Bryce into action. Having already pinched his door key while he slept early in the episode, we are shown her plan of attack in a wonderfully realised daydream-style sequence that simply had to have been filmed in the 70s.
Gun, chocolates, sleeping pills, grandmother-style dressing gown, what more could a gal need?
As Beth (alone in bed, in a grandma-ish nightgown, tucking into a box of chocolates), imagines what lies ahead, the camera plays out the assassination plot in soft, swirling focus. We’re shown Beth’s plans that will involve the keyless Bryce come round to her patio window and ask to be let in, at which point she’ll slay him, slam on the burglar alarm and play the old ‘Ah was sleepin’ an’ done thought it was a prowler‘ routine that so seemed to fool US juries in the 1970s. What could possibly go wrong?
BUT HOLD YOUR HORSES! Did I just hear the sound of a needle skipping across a record, that universal signifier that the game doth change? I did! For Beth’s plans have been scuppered not once, but twice.
Firstly, Peter (just back from a business trip) has received the letter from Bryce and ain’t happy. In fact he leaps into his car and screeches straight over to Chadwick HQ to give the control freak a piece of his mind.
Worse still, Bryce himself – that perennial party pooper – sidesteps Beth’s plans. Instead of falling for the bait, he’s simply let himself in through the front door with a spare key hidden in a plant pot (as millions of normal folk would – good foresight, Beth) and wanders into Beth’s bedroom, casual as you like, to ask why she didn’t answer the ringing doorbell.
Despite being stunned, Beth recollects herself, guns Bryce down and sets off the alarm. Peter, who has just arrived, hears the shots and the alarm, vaults the driveway gate, gazelle-like, and jallops to the house as Beth desperately tries to make the cold-blooded killing look like the accident she had planned.
And in one of the tensest of all Columbo moments, just as she’s finished moving briefcase, body and all into their proper positions, the front door bell rings. Beth’s sense of panic is palpable. Her best-laid plans have well and truly gone to pot.
“When Bryce and Beth’s mother arrives, her first act is to slap Beth’s face for killing her beloved son.”
Luckily, Peter’s a sympathetic audience, and when the police arrive at the scene – including one Lieutenant Columbo – he keeps them at arm’s reach. Beth’s story is plausible, certainly, but it’s not all plain sailing. When Bryce and Beth’s mother arrives from Phoenix, her first act (after hilariously demanding Columbo carry in her luggage and pay her taxi fee), is to slap Beth’s face for killing her beloved son. But despite family friction, Beth is determined to turn over a new leaf. She just needs to come through an inquest, first. No biggie…
As luck would have it, the inquest jury lets her go free, and Beth starts making those major changes to her life. She has a complete makeover, going from a bookish, timid type to a saucy minx with a daring dress sense and dashing new hairdo.
“Beth has a complete makeover, going from a bookish, timid type to a saucy minx with a daring dress sense and dashing new hairdo.”
She also assumes control of the company, tough talks the board room stiffs, belittles her mother, and starts domineering Peter – first promoting him without asking, then announcing their engagement without consulting him. A puzzled Peter doesn’t know what to make of this sudden transformation and says so. Beth begins to wonder whether he’s really man enough for her after all.
After a cordial start, Beth’s relationship with Columbo soon plummets downhill
The main fly in the ointment for Beth is, of course, Columbo. Despite her being found innocent, he won’t go away. Those little things that always bother him are doing so again. If Bryce broke in through Beth’s window, why was there a copy of the evening paper by the front door? Why didn’t Bryce have grass cuttings on his shoes after walking across the freshly-cut lawn to her room window? And why did Beth order a brand new Ferrari, which she must have done in advance of her brother’s death?
“The main fly in the ointment for Beth is, of course, Columbo. Despite her being found innocent, he won’t go away.”
The wily Lieutenant manages to engineer a situation where he finds himself in a bar with Peter, who is drowning his sorrows as he contemplates love on the rocks. The two get talking and Columbo produces Beth’s transcript from the inquest that states she was woken by the burglar alarm, and then shot at what she thought was an intruder.
Peter is a fine lawyer with a great memory for detail. He recalls that he heard the shots first, then the alarm. With all the rest of the circumstancial evidence Columbo has amassed, it’ll be enough for a conviction.
So again we encounter Beth in her bedroom, this time sexily attired, reading reports while smoking and drinking. She really is a new woman. She hears a rustle outside of her window and reaches for the gun, but soon twigs it’s Columbo playing a trick on her.
Beth Chadwick V2.0 is a somewhat sultrier model…
He enters the room and tells her she’s under arrest. She laughs in his face, but when he explains that Peter’s testimony is what has been her undoing she draws a gun on him. “There’s no point in that, not with the police officers outside,” Columbo retorts, as calmly as if he were passing the time of day with a petrol pump assistant. “Besides,” he adds. “You’re too classy a woman.”
Won over by his chivalrous words, Beth smiles, hands the gun to Columbo and heads off to slip into something less alluring before going downtown.
Columbo, meanwhile, steps outside to light his cigar. The camera draws back through the dark garden to reveal not a policemen in sight, as credits roll…
Lieutenant Columbo: cool under pressure
Best moment – the dreaded ringing at the door
There are some splendid scenes throughout, but Beth’s moment of unadulterated terror as lover Peter rings the doorbell midway through her post-murder tidy-up work is really well done.
The sense of panic invoked by the camera work, the music and Clark’s facial expressions combine like a charm. It’s as convincing a display of panic as you’re ever likely to see on the small screen, and it sets the viewer’s heart thumping with the tension.
No image I can find does justice to Susan Clark’s convincing portrayal of panic when the doorbell rings post-murder
Columbo Lady in Waiting: my opinion
I regard Lady in Waiting as possibly the most under-rated Columbo episode of all. I know few fans that mention it amongst their favourites, yet when given close scrutiny it stands proudly in its own right.
Susan Clark was the least high-profile guest star murderer of Season 1 by a mile, which could contribute to why it’s comparatively under the radar. I rather suspect this is an episode skipped over by casual viewers, who prefer to sit in front of a Cassidy or Culp classic. But Lady in Waiting really delivers – and at its best it’s very, very good.
“Susan Clark was the least high-profile guest star murderer of Season 1 by a mile, which could contribute to why it’s comparatively under the radar.”
The main characters and their respective journeys make it an episode that keeps the attention. Clark is a big surprise. She’s superb and her character arc is intriguing. We really pity Beth at the start (she appears in my ‘Most sympathetic Columbo killers‘ article as a result). She’s been a victim of chauvinism all her life, and her own mother has let it happen. But as the episode progresses, and Beth’s new-found freedoms go to her head and fundamentally alter her character, any sympathy erodes away.
It’s excellent writing, and believable stuff. We can see why Beth would act this way after years under the heel of her beastly family. We can see why lover Peter would act how he does, too, in such rapidly-changing circumstances. All credit to writer Steven Bochco, who again rises to the occasion after also boasting writing duties on the superior season opener, Murder by the Book.
As an aside (and by no means one meant to plunge this into lewd, wolf-whistling territory), Clark is absolutely gorgeous in this. I love her physical transformation, the visual equivalent of the huge psychological change she undergoes. The self-doubt rolls away with her old look. The new Beth is smart, sexy and in the driving seat. Clark does a fine job in portraying both sides of Beth Chadwick. No mean feat when playing against as testing a co-star as Falk.
The emancipation and metamorphosis of Beth Chadwick makes for captivating viewing
As mentioned in my ‘Best ever Columbo supporting stars‘ article, I really rate Leslie Nielsen’s performance in this. Seeing him playing it straight takes quite some getting used to for an audience more used to his capering antics in Police Squad and Airplane!, but he’s on top form.
He nicely portrays the confusion and inner conflict brought about to Peter by Beth’s character transformation. He truly loved Beth for who she was. He would have quit his job for her in a heartbeat. Yet her emancipation alienates him.
The natural comic talent still shines through at times, though. His cheerful response of “No, I hate you with a passion,” to Beth’s early-episode plea for him to confirm his love could have come straight out of Naked Gun. In short, he’s a joy to watch. But it does raise the question: was his hair ever anything other than grey?
On a more serious note, another question must also be asked: could Peter only have loved the down-trodden Beth, the one so desperate for his love, and the one without the strength to take fate into her own hands? Were they ill-fated lovers all along? The more you consider this, the more likely this seems, and it adds a nice dimension to proceedings for the more thoughtful viewer.
“I AM serious. And DON’T call me Shirley…”
Special credit must also go to veteran character actress Jessie Royce Landis, who plays Beth’s overbearing mother. It’s a small role, but she tackles it with aplomb, firstly mistaking Columbo for home help, and making him struggle in with her luggage and pay her cab fare (telling him he “hardly looks the part,” when she realises he’s a policeman); then violently striking Beth for the death of her brother; before ultimately, meekly fading into the background as an increasingly dominant Beth starts calling the shots.
The character drama is compelling, but there’s plenty of fun to be had, too. As well as the taxi scene outlined above, the drive-in scene, where Columbo takes Peter for a ‘slap-up’ burger lunch to discuss the case, raises smiles galore – plus it’s nice to see the top down on the Peugeot for a change.
There are some nice touches of humour as Columbo treats Peter Hamilton to a slap-up feed at the drive-in diner
Falk as Columbo is predictably superb. The Lieutenant is at his tenacious best, never giving up on his belief of Beth’s guilt – regardless of the little matter of the jury finding her innocent.
His personal highlight is how he extricates himself from a potentially fatal situation at episode’s end. Beth has little to lose by gunning Columbo down. After all, he’s behaving in a most un-policeman like way. Yet he dodges death with guile and charm, finding a chink in Beth’s armour in that warm, human way Falk does so well. Take note ABC years – Columbo does not need to do stupid stuff like putting his head in a guillotine. This is how he handles crisis situations to close a case.
“Columbo dodges death with guile and charm, finding a chink in Beth’s armour in that warm, human way Falk does so well.”
As an aside – and this is purely my opinion – this is the first episode in which I sense the writers really knew that Mrs Columbo was real, and not some figment of the Lieutenant’s imagination designed to drop into conversations to flummox and disarm the killers.
Columbo’s barside conversation with Peter about his argument with Mrs Columbo, and her love of proverbs, is so genuine, and is such a slice of real married life, that she simply must be real. I find that comforting, and it’s perhaps another reason why I rate this outing so highly.
“There’s a few things that bother me. Nothing much you understand…”
So in conclusion, Lady in Waiting is one of those Columbo episodes that surprises the viewer with just how good it is, even if it’s never quite top of their watch list. It’s a decent mystery, if not a great one, but the performances to a man and woman are superb. If you haven’t watched this one for a while I really encourage you to dig it out. You’ll be glad you did.
Did you know?
Like Dead Weight from earlier in the season, Lady in Waiting was also beset with difficulties between Falk and the studio, leading to walk-outs and a delayed schedule. Although it didn’t cause bad blood between Falk and Clark or episode director Norman Lloyd (who is still with us at the age of 101), it did give rise to a potential studio solution to the on-going run-ins.
Universal execs of the time came up with the idea of book-ending seasons of Columbo with Falk episodes, and then letting 4-5 other actors play the character in between. I think I speak for all fans when I say: Thank God they never did it…
How I rate ‘em
It may stun viewers to learn that I rate an episode many overlook ahead of the iconic Prescription: Murder, but I stand by my decision. I personally enjoy Lady in Waiting a great deal, so it sneaks into 4th place. Here’s my full list so far:
- Suitable for Framing
- Murder by the Book
- Death Lends a Hand
- Lady in Waiting
- Prescription: Murder
- Ransom for a Dead Man
- Dead Weight
You can check out the other reviews by clicking on their respective links above. And if you haven’t yet done so, please vote for your very favourite episode in my Columbo poll here. More than 1200 fans have done so up to now. Don’t be that guy who hasn’t done it…
Next up on my journey through Columbo Season 1 is Short Fuse, starring the ever bonkers Roddy McDowall. It’s one I watch rarely, and my memories (reluctantly) chiefly centre on Roddy’s outrageously tight trousers. Whether there’s more substance to the episode than that remains to be seen!
Read my take on the top 5 scenes from Lady in Waiting here.
Contribute to this site’s upkeep from just $3
See you next time. Or else…
I tried to have sympathy for Beth Chadwick, but in the end, I could not. The way she fantasises about killing her brother – she has a look on her face like she is a little girl dreaming of riding a pony or something. And then there is the playful girly look she has on her face when columbo takes the gun from her at the end. No remorse, no guilt. She murdered her brother in cold blood, and there is no evidence that he did anything wrong. On the contrary, he tried to look after her and protect her and he did a good job. She could have carried on seeing Leslie Nielsen even if he had left the company. I am outraged by the murder. I don’t have sympathy for Beth Chadwick. And don’t call me Shirley.
As I said on the “most sympathetic killers” list, I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree with the characterization of Beth as a sympathetic, downtrodden person surrounded by a family that has been “victimizing her by chauvinism all her life.”
It is true that we’re pretty sympathetic with her early on, but her egomania and narcissism during the second half of the story seem pretty damn pathological–so why not take her family’s collective verdict (mother, father and brother) at face value? Instead of being oppressed, perhaps Beth really is just an extremely self-absorbed and selfish person and often manipulated by others (this apparently wasn’t the first time) who play to her narcissism.
Does the brother seem sadistic about it? No, just a bit fed up, or at worst very callous. Does he threaten to cut Beth off if she keeps seeing the guy? No. He only threatens to cut the guy off. But still, he could’ve still kept dating her… *if* he truly was in love with her.
The fact that Beth is maybe the only villain (I think?) in the 70s series who points a gun at Columbo and the fact that she only spares his life because he compliments her really underlines her family’s verdict of her character.
For a variety of cultural reasons, I suspect that many people who are quick to identify and (correctly) loathe narcissism in males (especially privileged males) struggle to identify and properly condemn the same trait in privileged females. It being pathological doesn’t make it any less twisted and evil.
That said, this was certainly a decent enough story, and with an interesting villain. I also appreciated the device of having us witness the intended plan and then the botched plan, which is an angle I think they could have used more often instead of almost always presenting us with an *apparently* perfect plan.
(But on the subject of villainesses, I found Ruth Lytton to be far more intriguing and sympathetic, though the third act should’ve been laid out better and her framing of her niece more properly explored and explained–possibly she was just establishing reasonable doubt, and didn’t expect her to ever go to trial?)
Watching Columbo solve an apparently perfect crime, with no obvious flaws, is far more intriguing for the viewer. We know who did it and how (mostly), but don’t know the hidden weakness(es) Columbo will find and exploit to solve the case. If we’re shown a “botched plan” at the beginning, we know where Columbo is headed. “Lady in Waiting” is a good example. Because Bryce didn’t enter through the glass doors, as planned, the shots preceded the alarm. We notice immediately that the shots preceded the alarm, and know that anyone within earshot would know this, too. Peter Hamilton confirmed early on that he heard the whole thing. So he would also know that the shots preceded the alarm. This case could have been solved in the first half-hour. The episode’s biggest mystery is why it took Columbo almost another full hour to draw this fact from Peter. Had Bryce not botched Beth’s plan by entering through the front door (and leaving his telltale newspaper on the foyer table), this might have been a far more interesting mystery to watch Columbo solve.
The simple reason why Columbo doesn’t solve the mystery on the very first night is: It is not Columbo who questions Beth and Peter; this is done by another detective, who (not unlike Sergeant Wilson or Superintendent Durk from Scotland Yard) falls for a set up. This shows that only Columbo can solve crimes properly within his own series – and this is how it’s meant to be.
It’s not as if Columbo couldn’t ask his own questions that night. He hovered over the questioning, listening carefully, and followed up with both Beth and Peter. Peter said he heard three shots. He was then asked, “And the alarm was going?” He answered, “That’s right.” Moments later, Columbo asked Peter a clarifying question (“So you came over here to kinda have it out with him?”). He could easily have asked a different clarifying question: “Was the alarm ringing WHILE the shots were being fired?”
I am imagining how to rewrite the script the way you suggest:
“Sorry for the interruption, Sir, but my name is Lieutenant Columbo. Mr. Hamilton, would you allow me just one more thing? Was the alarm ringing WHILE the shots were being fired?” –
“It was ringing all the time until we switched it off, Lieutenant. Why do you assume it wouldn’t ring?” –
“Oh, no offense, Sir, I was just wondering… maybe you were so confused that you couldn’t tell whether the alarm was ringing before, during or after the shots.” –
“How could it possibly have started ringing after the shots, Mr. Columbo?” – “There could be a lot of reasons.” – “For example?” –
“Maybe Miss Chadwick was awake already and fired the gun on purpose and then she realized she did a forbidden thing and hastily tried to cover it up with her story of having mixed up her brother with a burglar.”
(Beth raising her eyes wide open, facing the Lieutenant):
“How dare you! Officer, would you kindly lead this man out of my mansion?”
I wouldn’t have liked the episode as much if these lines were in the script.
My principal point was this: If Bryce had entered as Beth had arranged — because he couldn’t find his key to the front door — it would have been a more interesting case for Columbo to solve. And the audience would not have been clued into how the case would be solved from the beginning.
As to the questioning, there is a clear distinction between hearing gunshots and hearing gunshots THROUGH THE SOUND OF AN ALARM. Anyone who hears gunshots would know if they were shots ringing out in the silence of the night, or shots punctuating an already ringing alarm. So it’s not a case of remembering which came first. Rather, it’s the much simpler question of how clearly the shots could be heard, because they pierced silence. If so, the alarm wasn’t ringing first.
You still miss a crucial psychological matter: How could Columbo have turned Peter Hamilton against his fiancee in the first night? Even if he had remembered hearing the gunshots first on his own, it would have been an impossibly big jump to the conclusion for Peter that he has lost his heart and soul to an evil murderess who has just killed a relative on cold blood for his love’s sake. He is even laughing at Columbo in the end when Columbo thinks she did, although meanwhile his love for her has started to erode. After spectating Beth’s development, the timing is right for him to testify against her. The timing would have been wrong in the first night.
First, Beth and Peter should have been questioned separately. They probably spoke before the police arrived; that couldn’t be helped. But once police were on the scene, Peter should not have been present when Beth told her story. Peter wasn’t her lawyer. (He certainly didn’t represent her at the inquest.) She had the right to the presence of an attorney, but no right to have Peter with her when questioned. He should have been questioned independently, blind to how his account jived with the details Beth was giving police. He could have incriminated her without realizing it.
Furthermore, there is no indication anywhere in the episode that Peter was ever anything less than 100% honest about what he told police. He certainly was honest with Columbo when the right question was finally asked.
Maybe the author should have included another variation of the script? Peter: “Excuse me, gentlemen, it’s very considerate of you to question Beth and me together, because she is in shock and needs my help right now, but legally I have no right to support my fiancé tonight. You better call her a doctor and a lawyer although I am one myself.”
I guess, a lawyer who has a 100% honest personality wouldn’t be as successful as Peter Hamilton, because an excellent lawyer needs to be able to represent an opposing party in a litigation as well as the party he personally prefers, which make his statements adaptable to any situation, no matter what his honest opinion may be. The reason we sympathize with Peter Hamilton is because we think he must be the suitable husband for a mentally mistreated woman like Beth rather than because he is a good and honest attorney. We mustn’t forget her mother’s judgment about him. Maybe she is right after all that Beth’s money makes a big deal in his decision to marry her. She may have be an unfair mother all her life, but if Mrs. Chadwick was a character we can easily dislike, she probably would have cherished Beth’s changes in the end, but even she is disgusted with Beth’s new personality.
It is a very good episode, w/ Falk spotting lots of interesting clues, and Clark’s transformation quite believable, as were the huge mistakes she made in going through w/ her nefarious plan.
There being a jury trial so soon after her brother’s “accidental” death seems incorrect, but no worries. Barbara Rhoades was wolf-whistle lovely in this, and Nielsen’s reactions to Clark’s transformation (“metamorphosis” as he put it) were first-rate acting.
I was more accustomed to Leslie Neilsen playing it straight. Then his comedy movies came out which threw me.
One would have to go back several more years (from this episode) to see Neilsen with no grey. The 1950s sci-fi epic film, “Forbidden Planet” is a good example of seeing a younger Leslie Nielsen. Also, Richard Anderson was part of that cast (so was Anne Francis who will be in the next episode, “Short Fuse”).
Or a favorite from my childhood: Disney’s “Swamp Fox” (about the Revolutionary War soldier, Francis Marion).
Leslie made a hilarious appearance on MASH right after this episode so his future in comedy was on the right path. His scenes with Frank Burns and Hot Lips stole the show!
The hubby and I love Columbo since we were little kids in the 70’s. But this one had some pretty bad holes. 1) The crime was solved by information that would have been given in the very first interview w/ Leslie Nielson 2) The trial was over and she was found not guilty, but he keeps pursuing her for the same crime and claims she will be arrested. She can’t be tried again for the same crime under Double Jeopardy. Did I miss something?
A former prosecution lawyer has addressed this topic elsewhere in the comments section, but she was cleared of deliberately killing her brother in a coroner’s court. This would not prevent her standing trial for murder should sufficient evidence be uncovered.
I agree 100% with your first point. This is one episode that should have been solved immediately. (Another is “Try and Catch Me.”) But you are mistaken on your second point. The proceeding depicted was an inquest, not a trial. There was no defendant. There was no criminal charge. The presiding officer was not a judge but a coroner, with no power to punish. As a result, double jeopardy does not apply (because the first proceeding put no one in jeopardy of criminal punishment). Thus, regardless of the coroner’s verdict, a criminal case could still be brought if evidence of homicide surfaced.
Maybe mentioned before in the comments, but rewatching this ep last night (inspired by the piece on it in The Columbo Companion), I love how the director seems to deliberately link Susan Clark holding the yellow bulb (just after Columbo returns it to her) to an earlier shot of her holding the yellow tulip while being questioned by the lieutenant. Love Columbo for this kind of thing.
This episode contains an early appearance by Marcia Wallace. She’s the woman sitting next to Columbo at the inquest.
She’s actually in “Murder by the Book” as well, and listed in the credits there as “Woman.” That part originally had some lines, too, but they were cut. So all that’s left of Marcia is the back of her head (you can recognize the distinctive hairdo) standing on the shore, facing the lake, as Franklin walks by with his fishing rod. It’s ironic that she got no billing in “Lady in Waiting,” where she does speak, but billing where she neither speaks nor faces the camera.
The one thing that has always bugged me is the killing itself. She shoots him in the chest, he falls face down. No blood there? No trail to show he was moved?
In the 70’s human blood coagulated at lightning speed. Humans were also easily killed with one strike of a blunt object. Evolution is a weird thing.
Did anyone notice that the piano music in the bar when Columbo and Peter are talking is the theme from Ransom for a Dead Man? I really love that theme. Billy Goldenberg wrote the music for this one as well.
Forgive me for not going through all 100+ comments here, but has anyone pointed out that Peter Hamilton apparently lives in the same apartment building as Dr. Ray Flemming and his wife from Prescription: Murder? The same shot (nighttime exterior, camera pans up to an apartment complex) was used to establish the setting for the Flemming’s tenth anniversary party and also for Hamilton’s arrival home from his business trip in Atlanta.
Gotta love this 1971 episode….if, for no other reason, than the way the actress Susan Barrister looked in her “hotpants outfit”—she played the waitress at the hamburger stand—-Man!, those early 1970s outfits some women wore!
Oh!, and this episode also included a still relatively unknown actress by the name of Babara Rhoades—who played the hostess at the hair salon. It was such a shame seeing Barbara wearing such an unflattering dress…..cuz…well….Barbara Rhoades, at that particular time in her life, had quite the figure on her!….let me tell ya! You can clearly see what I mean in another Columbo episode…..Season 5, Episode 3 “Identity Crisis”.
Unlike people who get after him openly about it, she has this great “pained” look when it comes to Columbo’s cigar.
Asked and answered on this board several times now, sir. It wasn’t a trial and she wasn’t tried twice.
I liked this one a lot, but the timeframe was just a bit weird with the trial taking place before the investigation… I thought someone couldn’t be tried twice for the same crime ?
I don’t know which I find more enjoyable; the episodes or your reviews.