That was such a weak argument - they saw little marks on her nose where possible eyeglasses were possibly worn -- and to think it was such an important point (although incredibly weak and silly) that it swayed the non-sweating man and several comments that well now we have a doubt and we must be sure in a murfer trial. This is sort of appalling to me. They should have asked the judge if this lady witness was wearing eye glasses when she saw the murder occur.
shareMurder not murfer sorry for typo.
shareBy that point, it was the preponderance of doubt with all the evidence, not just one witness' eyesight (vanity), that turned Juror #4's vote. That piece of evidence spoke to him most strongly. Each juror had his "soft spot" though we never knew what #7's was because he never explained it except to say he was tired of the talking. Even when another demanded to know his reason for changing his vote to not guilty he only said, "I just do." Apparently he hoped to go to the baseball game still.
shareI want to bring up why 7 changes his vote. He does it because of all the talking that he is sick of, so he says. However, I think he really no longer thinks he is guilty, as he is forced to admit later. Earlier, he said that his mind couldn't be changed but now it was. He didn't want to eat crow on that, so he tried to cover it up but 11 didn't like that and forced him to say why he changed his vote.
shareAt that point a lot of question markes had been raised- some stronger than the the nose marks. This was just one more question on top of other questions, and together with all the others, it was enough to cause the broker to change his vote. It is not appalling to me.
How would the judge know if she was wearing eyeglasses when she saw the murder? If it wasn't brought up in the trial, the judge would have had to say it is not a relevant question for him to address.
Seen as you bring that up, its summer, baking hot.
Did anybody ever think sunglasses?
She could have worn sunglasses all week during a hot summer, during that day and took them off in the court building.
Those are the kind of marks one gets from wearing pince-nez eyeglasses--the kind without sidepieces, that hang on the ears. Like Teddy Roosevelt wore. The pincers are the only thing supporting the glasses in front of the eyes, and can be irritating to the nose bridge. I know. I have worn them.
shareI used to wear glasses all the time until I had cataract surgery and don't need to wear glasses as often now. I always had those pinch marks on my nose from regular glasses, wire-rims or plastic frames. I still get the indentations when wearing glasses for even an hour.
sharePullman: same here, and I do need glasses for reading or any other closeup work. So I must admit that if I were in the woman's position, not wearing my glasses would be a plus for my testimony.
However, the woman witness was described as about 45, which is probably much too young for cataracts.
I don't wear eyeglasses but whenever I wear sunglasses, I have those marks on the side of my nose for hours afterwards
shareIt is stupid and contrived and unrealistic. I wear glasses and those marks don't last long, they also are not noticeable from across a room. The old man in this film is basically Columbo.
shareThe jury box in a courtroom is right next to the witness chair, not across the room. And Juror 4 admits he saw the marks as well.
shareThe thing that confuses me is - what if she only needed glasses for reading or for other close-range tasks?
Maybe there was nothing wrong with her distance vision, in which case she wouldn't have needed glasses either to see the murderer's face at the scene or to identify him in court.
Is there any way the jurors would have been able to tell from the marks whether she was near- or far-sighted?
Well, that's definitely a possibility! And it's possible she fell asleep wearing glasses or her glasses were right by her bedside and she immediately reached for them when she heard the noise.
But it really doesn't matter.
Her testimony was that she saw the defendant. Now her eyesight is being called into question. And in the event they apparently couldn't find out what kind of eye problems she had, they are faced with the decision of discrediting her testimony given her compromised eyesight or to continue to believe in her testimony because they figure her compromised eyesight probably only affected part of her vision that was not needed to make the identification.
I mean, if all the information you have is that someone normally wore glasses but weren't wearing them (or contacts these days) and they claimed they saw something specific, would you necessarily believe them?
I am compelled to adduce a principle of logic called "Occam's Razor" or the "principle of parsimony": That is, the simplest explanation that covers all the facts is most likely to be the correct one. Think about that for a while.
shareSo what is the simplest explanation? It happened as the prosecution stated, it actually happened the way it appeared to in the beginning before they analyzed it or after.
Son gets hit, son buys knife, son (who is a knife fighter) kills dad, son leaves knife in him that he, son runs, witnesses see and hear him, son gets caught and rightfully arrested as he returns to the scene of the crime?
or
Son gets hit, son buys knife, son loses this knife, boy goes to movies, someone else kills the father with the exact same knife, killer leaves knife, killer runs, two witnesses are completely wrong in what they heard and saw, son gets wrongfully arrested?
User Error Please Try Again
Well, there you have an ambiguity--a reasonable doubt.
shareI was asking what you thought the simplest explanation was. tI would seem to me IMO that the son killing the father is the simplest way to go. Let's face it - to find him not guilty - you have to get past the "million to one" odds of the knife, the two witnesses being wrong, the kid not having a valid alibi, his history of knife fighting etc etc....You would have to get past many "coincidences" and use assumptions to fill the gaps. Whether you think he was guilty or not - I wouldn't think the "simplest" theory is what the jury concluded.
User Error Please Try Again
the 'million to one' odds about the knife was refuted in the movie when Juror 8 says he bought the same knife in the boy's neighbourhood the night before. if the boy bought one, and Juror 8 bought one, there's a possibility (and all you need is reasonable doubt) that those knives aren't as hard to come by as the court had been led to believe. the fact that the boy had a knife of that design now becomes circumstantial evidence rather than hard proof.
whether or not the female witness needed glasses to see the murder, the testimony of the male witness was, in my opinion, discredited due to the noise of the el train and the time it would have taken him to get to the door and open it. now we only have one witness, whose testimony may be discredited if she needed glasses and wasn't wearing them.
i think that, at the end of the day, most of the jurors would have rathered vote "not convinced of guilt" instead of "not guilty" - which are two different things - but that's not a choice jurors have. given the questions left open by several key pieces of evidence, leaving reasonable doubt, the jurors could not vote "guilty". i found this movie to be a very clear example of a glaring problem in our justice system, because i am not convinced the boy was innocent - but i could not vote "guilty" with this evidence.
the 'million to one' odds about the knife was refuted in the movie when Juror 8 says he bought the same knife in the boy's neighbourhood the night before.
in my opinion, discredited due to the noise of the el train and the time it would have taken him to get to the door and open
i'm not holding the old man to his quoted 15 seconds. i'm imagining the speed with which the boy would have rushed from his apartment and down the stairs compared to the speed with which the old man could have gotten out of bed and down the hall and unlocked the door. 15 seconds or 41 seconds, i think a young fit panicking youth would have been quicker.
i know nothing about the noise of an el train except what i've seen in movies, where the concept of living next to a track is played up as extremely noisy - this movie doing nothing to change that idea. while i agree there may be differences based on the thickness of walls, etc, the fact that the window was open, in my opinion, negates what insulation thicker walls may have provided.
i stand by the fact that the knife the boy bought was not the only one like it available to be purchased in his neighbourhood. before the murder, after the murder, you're right, there's no way to tell from the information presented to the jury. what the jury does know - from an illegal method, granted - is that there is another one just like it, in the boy's neighbourhood, period. to me, that makes it circumstantial evidence.
and perhaps what i'm doing is the same as what the jurors did - speculating based on their own knowledge - but that's kind of my point. like i said, i don't necessarily believe the boy is innocent. i think there is enough doubt in the evidence to make it impossible to say he is guilty, though. my point, and the only reason i weighed in, was to put forth my opinion that our justice system should allow for a jury to say, "not convinced of guilt" - which is different than both "not guilty" and a hung jury.
i think a young fit panicking youth would have been quicker.
is that there is another one just like it, in the boy's neighbourhood, period. to me, that makes it circumstantial evidence.
your description of what the boy did after the murder is just as speculative as mine. we have come to different conclusions based on our different descriptions.
we only have eye-witness testimony about the use of that particular knife by that particular suspect from a witness whose eyesight has been called into question and has not been resolved.
I thought it was strange that they didnt have the woman asked for her prescription or the state of her eyesight after this came up in the jury deliberation room.
shareThey can't. It wasn't part of the evidence. They can't open the investigation up or ask things that weren't entered into evidence.
User Error Please Try Again
Agreed. But if they voted to convict and it was discovered that the woman couldn't recognize her own mother at 50 feet, the judge would have the discretion to set the verdict aside.
shareThat wouldn't happen. Once it goes to the jury - there is no more evidence to be admitted or testimony to be heard. He can declare a mistrial or set aside the verdict - but he wouldn't listen to new evidence or the jury. They are to make their decision based on the evidence and testimony presented in court. If the judge feels the jury disregarded the evidence submitted in court then he can set aside the verdict.
User Error Please Try Again
A older post, but I thought I should make a point of clarification.
A judge can, if the defense makes a timely motion, set aside a guilty verdict and render a directed verdict of not guilty.
A judge cannot set aside a not guilty verdict for any reason. Once a verdict of not guilty is rendered by a jury it is nearly absolute. (the possible exception would be if it can be proven that a juror was bribed. That would be a difficult thing to prove and even if the judge decided they were the best he could do is declare a mistrial and allow a new trial to occur.)
Well, the reason the fourth juror finally votes not guilty is that now he has a reasonable doubt in his mind. He thought the woman's testimony was accurate despite all the other evidence getting disproved so he stayed with guilty. Once he realized that the woman wore eyeglasses due to those nose marks, he realized that she didn't wear them when she saw the killing. Now, yes, maybe she was a farsighted woman, but he doesn't know. And I don't think they could've asked the judge that. That didn't come out in the trial so it is not relevant. If the DA had known about the glasses, he would've handled that, but because the woman never wore them around him, it didn't occur to him.
sharethey were talking about reasonable doubt.
so her testimony could be flawed... remember she was still 60 feet away and saw a "murder" through the train (?!)
that's sketchy by itself- add the glasses and you've got doubt.