The problem with the theories is that they are making assumptions, they are assuming that the old-lady wears glasses based on little indents on the sides of her nose.
It's only an assumption in the sense that they don't have absolute proof of it, but by that standard virtually everything argued in a court room is an assumption. The question is is whether or not they're
reasonable assumptions, and more likely than the alternatives. In this case, what are the alternatives? Identical birthmarks on either side of her nose? That's an assumption, too, and a much less plausible one.
They ultimately made the decision a matter of race towards the end whenever there was a lot of evidence going against it.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean or why it's relevant, but the reason race came up is that it became quite obvious a lot of people were projecting guilt onto the boy because he was from a poor, minority neighborhood. This doesn't prove his innocence, but it's a good illustration of the sort of prejudices people can let affect their conclusions.
The boy apparently saw a movie the same night but couldn't remember anything about the movie. Which they somehow justified by a man having seen a "whodunnit" and not being able to remember his either.
As Juror #8 points out, he was asked about it in full view of his murdered father, which isn't the best time for a quick memory test. It's also worth bearing in mind that people didn't watch movies then the way we do now. Now it's an event: you go to see a specific, single movie. Back then you'd see a few in a row, and not necessarily know or care what was playing, as evidenced by the fact that the other juror reels off something like three when asked what he saw. A better modern comparison would be asking you what TV shows or YouTube videos you watched a few days ago.
- The boy miraculously lost a blade the same night that his father died, and the same model of switch-blade was acknowledged as the murder weapon.
You put a fork in him because that is all she wrote, that's a one in a million possibility.
It is? Based on what? I'd love to see that math.
I don't think they said he lost it the same night his father died; just that he lost it. So that lessens the degree of coincidence considerably. So does the possibility that the person who found it may have used it, in which case there's a causal link and not mere coincidence. And we've established that this is a poor, dangerous neighborhood, and that you can easily buy a similar looking knife from a local pawn shop.
I don't know exactly how to calculate that kind of probability, and I don't think you do, either. But I'm pretty sure it isn't one in a million.
However, the problem is not the overwhelming evidence against the child, because that is something that would actually make this movie interesting. The problem is how they dispel every conceivable piece of evidence thrown against the child in the most pathetic of ways. The woman across the street who positively identified the kid, is apparently lying, the elderly man down the hall, didn't actually see him either. Oh, no, he's a liar as well.
Let's examine the "pathetic" arguments, since you haven't actually done anything to question them other than calling them pathetic. Perhaps you can tell me exactly which parts you dispute: They say the woman couldn't see him because she wasn't wearing glasses, it was night, it was a ways away, and she says she saw the whole thing
through the windows of a passing train. These are all reasons to doubt her ability to identify someone.
The old man moved slowly and when they tried to recreate the act of walking the same distance, it took them three times as long.
Three times. More than long enough to iron out any imprecision in the recreation.
It's also worth pointing out that they don't say they were lying; they offer lots of psychological reasons why they might exaggerate or simply be mistaken. The only real argument is that they aren't reliable witnesses.
The boy lost a switch-blade within HOURS of his father's death that was identical to the one at the kill-scene? Pft... I have a switch-blade just like it. Yes, but YOU didn't lose your identical switch-blade within hours of your father's death, he did. Let's say that I have a pair of shoes, I bought them from Payless. They're nothing special, but it's very unlikely that somebody in those shoes is actually going to kill my father. And the man said that he bought the switch-blade at the kid's neighborhood. So, he obviously knew what he was looking for.
It's pretty weird that you'd go on about "circumstantial" evidence, and then present this, which is a textbook example of it.
But yeah, let's talk about plausibility for a second: how plausible is it that he'd come right back to the scene of the crime a few hours later?
"I'm going to kill you!" yelled at the top of his lungs with fire in his breath, but apparently, that is something that is thrown around regularly. Which brings me to the fact that I thought the dialogue was poorly done and forced. They made that somehow be swept under the rug as well by making one of the jurors say that to another one of the jurors. That's all well and good, but that juror probably didn't turn up dead hours later.
It wasn't swept under the rug, it was talked about quite a bit. For example, in addition to the point that it's a common phrase (I'm not sure why you say "apparently"--have you honestly never heard someone say it in a completely non-violent way?), the primary argument was that the old man couldn't have possibly identified it as the boy's voice, because a train was roaring by and shouting voices, in particular, are harder to identify.
Basically, the problem with the idea itself is that it everything is based off of hunch and assumption, not logic, and that goes for both sides.
The fact that it's hard to hear things over trains is not a hunch, or an assumption: it's common sense. So is the fact that a man with a limp can't move significant distances quickly.
Both guilty and not-guilty have absolutely nothing that particularly proves anything, but the kid being guilty has more weight to it, but the movie acts like it doesn't.
The movie doesn't act like that at all. Juror #3 (I think it was) has a moment with Juror #8 in the bathroom where he says "suppose you talk us all out of it and the boy really did knife his father?" And the music swells a bit and Juror #8 sits and looks thoughtful. Because it's a thoughtful movie. It doesn't hide from the possibility that he's wrong. But the fact is that the evidence isn't there, and they have to acquit him.
One of the most brilliant things about the film is that we never really know if he did it. We just know that you have to prove it, and you can't prove it with circumstantial things or assumptions about the kind of person he is.
Also, in-order for the kid to be acquitted, you have to completely move passed everything against him, which you can't.
I have no idea what "you have to completely move passed everything" means. In order to acquit, you simply need a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. You don't need alternative scenarios (though they help), and you don't need to completely invalidate every accusation or explain away every circumstance.
You tell me that this is all law, and I say that it's merely common-sense and that is something that is vital to a movie.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. What's common sense? That we should prosecute people for murder based on a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt?
A movie that lacks it, generally isn't very good. However, the ultimate reasons that I dislike the movie are simply because I didn't find it very entertaining more aggravating than anything. So, you're right in that sense, I did imagine myself as one of the jurors, which is to the film's credit, but that's one of the few perks that I can give to it. I didn't think that the acting was very good, the dialogue isn't realistic, and the "smart" juror having all of the answers, no matter how stupid they were, didn't strike me as believable. The story itself is intriguing, and could have been good, but I think that it came off as more adequate than anything. Certainly not an all-time great. Your rebuttal?
Well, my rebuttal is above, because nothing that I can say to defend the film artistically will matter as much as making the case that they were correct to acquit. I suspect most of your more aesthetic objections probably stem from that.