Twelve angry men is about twelve men that got picked as jurors for a case on a hot day. The case is about an 18 year old kid kills his father by stabbing him at midnight in a trainstation. So the 12 jurors discuss the murder and try to listen to the evidence and testimonies. Then they decide if he’s guilty or not guilty. At the end the 12 jurors decided that the 18 year old boywas not guilty because of the poor evidence. In my opinion I think the testimonies and evidence in this case supports the verdict that the boy is not guilty of murdering his father.
My first evidenceis the old man testimony. First of all, what this old man says is inaccurate because he said that he heard the boy say I’m going kill but how can he hear that if the el train was passing when the boykilled him. Also how can he get downstairs from his apartment in 15 to 20 seconds? The old guy must be lying because he’s making no sense, it’s not reasonable. He lied because probably he wantedattention. We tested the old man and reacted the whole thing and he got to the murder scene in 40 seconds. Also he saw the boy running down the stairs from the train station but that could be anyone thatwas at the scene and got scarred and ran away. This evidence is not strong enough to decide if he’s guilty.
My second evidence is the woman testimony. She’s also inaccurate because she saw the murderfrom her apartment window while the el train was passing through. But she has glasses and she can’t see that much, how are you suppose to believe she saw the boys face killing his father while the eltrain was passing. This evidence is really cheap to prove the boy guilty.
My third evidence is the one that made me decide that the boy is innocent. The boy is 5.5 feet tall and the father is 6.4feet tall. How can a guy that tall let a small guy stab him, unless he’s a professional knife fighter. Juror 5 was born and raised in the slums and he sees professional knife fighters in his backyard...