In 12 Angry Men the boy is guilty

"The old man heard the words. It's as simple as that. With the fact added into the this old man had heard it over the roaring el train means that the boy's rage and anger was that strong and showed that his ability to do such an act."It could mean that. It could also mean that the old man was not telling the truth. An oncoming train makes a lot of noise. Even if the old man could tell someone was saying something, there's no way he could have made out a full sentence and accurately identified the voice from another apartment."The old man was also under oath when he gave his claim and said that he had heard the boy say such a thing through the el train."If the man had convinced himself enough to kill the boy over it, or was immoral enough to lie in order to put a kid in the electric chair, there's no reason for him not to say it under oath."Plus to add that he was beaten and abbused [sic] by his father it seems fitting that the boy had a moment of rage and decided to stand up for himself and strike his father back."That's true, but it is again circumstancial and doesn't prove anything."That jurror [sic] did something illegal by bringing in that switch blade."Yes he did, as he states himself. The fact remains that it shows the weapon was not unique, which invalidates the only physical evidence placing the boy at the murder scene."The fact remains is that this boy had the knife, lost the knife and then the murder weapon was that same knife. Even if it was easy to obtain, it still doesn't show the shere coincedence that the murder weapons were the same and the boy had just 'lost' his. How often do you lose a weapon? If you have a weapon then you keep a safe guard of it as it is either for protection or used as a threat."He may not have bought it for himself. He claimed to buy it for a friend whose knife he had broken dropping it on the pavement."Though when something major happens to you in your life you are going to remember a lot of it. Let's say he didn't recognize the actors, but say he went to watch Magic Mike. How are you going to forget something like that when there are male strippers in the movie or like in Pulp Fiction where the phase [sic], "English motherf-er, do you speak it?" line is spoken. It's a classical [sic] line that will help to remember the movie. It's obvious that the kid didn't see the movie and was elsewhere. This is where we get PDST. [sic] You remember these events for the rest of your life."We don't know what movie he watched. We know that he was asked the title and the stars (NOT anything about the plot or the lines), but couldn't answer. My opponent admits that it's possible the boy didn't recognize the actors, and it would have been difficult to think of the title when he was probably in such a shock after finding out the police suspected him of killing his father. THAT is the kind of thing you remember for the rest of your life."Though lets say she only saw a blurry [sic]. She still saw someone in that blurry [sic] that was the size of that kid killing his father."Size alone is not a good way to identify a person, especially from 50 feet away in the dark."Then [sic] kid than [sic] ran out of the house and was seen by the old man. (which my opponent drops)"The reason I seemed to drop this was because I already showed that the old man's testimony was shaky, as he couldn't have made out the words and voice with the el going by."Still, if you find a family member injured from a knife wound then you are to call for help or do what ever you can to help them."DEAD. The father was DEAD from a knife wound. Not much anyone could have done to help. Besides, what makes you think the kid cared about his father? You said yourself that his father beaten and abused him, for at least 13 years. Even if he didn't kill the father that doesn't mean he cared about him."The fact is that if the boy didn't kill his father someone else did. The father is dead with a knife in his father's chest that is much like the one the kid had and admitted to having. There are so many coincidences here. The boy so happend to lose this knife just hours after his father was murdered."This is really just one coincidence."There are several witnesses that saw the kid do it."My opponent just pulls this out of thin air. It is explicitly stated that two witnesses, one of whom did NOT see the crime being committed, were the entire case for the prosecution. Of the 11 other men in the room when this is said, at least 2 of whom are obsessed with proving the boy's guilt almost to the point of insanity, noone objects to this. If there were other eyewitnesses, they would have been mentioned at some point, but we only know of the one."When questioned about the movie he didn't remember the title, stars, or anything about the movie at all."He may not have remembered the title or stars. He may have remembered them but been too nervous to speak. Even if he didn't remember the title or stars, there's never any indication that he didn't remember the plot."The child was arguing with his father and then yelled I'm going to kill you."According to shaky witness testimony."Plus the man down the hall saw the kid leaving the crime scene."Again, according to shaky witness testimony."The actual murder used the same weapon that the kid had."Yes, but the weapon was not unique and didn't have any fingerprints on it.I'd also like to point out one more detail, which is the nature of the wound. The murderer had stabbed the father at a downward angle, which would require an overhand stab, but switchblade knives are designed to be used underhanded. The boy was by all accounts very handy with a switch knife and must certainly have known this. It's unlikely that he would have made the kind of wound that the murderer did.In conclusion, I have shown that the witness testimony is shaky at best, and the physical evidence does not prove that he was even there when the murder occurred, let alone that he committed it. As such, there is no evidence sufficient to prove that the boy was guilty.