If you just got back from the theater, you would remember the name of the movies you saw, no matter if your father was lying dead on the floor and the police was questioning you. Maybe not the actors, unless they were very well known, but you would remember the name of the movies.
That's my only issue. I remember movies I saw a month ago, and who starred in them, and I have been under some emotional stress lately.
I find the fact he doesn't remember to make him more credible. If he killed him and fled the scene, only to return hours later when the police were there, it only makes sense for him to go to the movies to get an alibi. Or at least to learn what's playing. But if he was upset and just paid money to go and wasn't really paying attention then why would he necessarily remember?
I had an interview four days ago and I was telling a friend of mine about it today but, for the life of me, I couldn't remember the name of the place I'd applied at. I'm sure some people, if my interview was my alibi for something, would find that highly suspicious but I was just having a mind blank. And nothing particularly stressful was going on with me!
Visiting the cinema in the 1950s was quite different to today. When you go to the movies, your local cineplex is probably showing ten different movies so you need to choose what you see. In the 50s chances are there was only one screen at your cinema. Also, the cinemas used to show a newsreel, some cartoons, a B movie and the main movie in a continuous loop. Cinemagoers used to turn up anytime, buy a ticket and go in even if the show was halfway through. They would sometimes watch the end of the main movie then sit through all the other stuff so they could see the start of the main movie. I think it is quite believable that if you were in a bad mood and just wanted to get out of the house, you could go buy a ticket without knowing what was on, you didn't need to check the times or anything. You could miss the start of the main movie, watch some of the other stuff and leave without even seeing the whole loop through. Considering that a lot of 50s movies were forgettable rom-coms (no change there) it is quite believable that the defendant wouldn't remember the name of the movie, even if he wasn't under stress.
shareThis is a very important point. Going to the movies today is a much more distinct event than it was back then. Going to the movies back then was more similar to watching a movie on tv at home now. I guarantee a lot of people today wouldnt remember the movies that they casually watched the night before while surfing tv.
shareThen why did the prosecution and most of the jurors find it important that he didn't know anything about the movies. They obviously were familiar with how movies were back then - yet they expected him to remember at least some facts about the movie. They didn't conclude he shouldn't have remembered because it wouldn't be expected - they concluded he wouldn't remember because of the stress. With that jury - I'm sure one would have said something to the affect of - who remembers the movies we go to - it's like watching TV - why would he remember anything.
User Error Please Try Again
Because they all thought the same thing: Well, I'd remember.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.
Yes. I agree. My point was that going to the movies wasn't as forgettable as some posters write. They make it seem like it's much different than today. It was different - but not as much as they are saying.
User Error Please Try Again
People interested in films enough to post on IMDb boards in today's world might well remember the name of a film they had seen. In the 1950s, and perhaps even today someone who went out of the house just to get away from Dad might not remember what film they had seen. And yes, someone carefully attempting to establish an alibi might be more likely to check the listings.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."
And, in that day and age, kids would go to the theater to pick up girls or just to hang out, not because they wanted to see the film that they have waited months to see. This man I used to work with would know a movie, but not who played in it! He didn't even know which actor played Captain America in the Avengers! He just watched the film.
shareIn your case, your emotional stress is not right after you saw the films (what did you see?) like the boy's was. Think about it this way: He comes home in the middle of the night to find the police there investigating the murder of his father. Now, even though he might not have gotten along with his dad much (they even fought that night), he might be upset to see this for various reasons:
1. He feels upset he didn't make up with his dad after the last argument.
2. He may have wished his dad dead after the last argument and got it and feels a little responsible because he wished it.
3. He might be thinking he was glad he was out at the time because if he had been home when his dad was killed, he might've been killed too by the same individual. Then there would have been 2 dead bodies there.
4. He is worried about how he is going to take care of himself now, a young kid with both parents buried in the ground.
The mistake the police did was question him right there, rather than take him downtown to calm down and question him there, so he wouldn't be distracted by this crime scene. That is what the cops usually do, correct? I'll bet his own lawyer didn't try to raise doubt with this line of questioning.
It's hard to say what cops did back in the 50's. Heck, I don't think the Miranda Warning was even a thing yet.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.
True. It probably wasn't. But the fact that the cops questioned him there rather than take him downtown is a blunder that a good defense attorney could use.
shareGood point. Just reinforces that the kid didn't have a good defense.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.
The Miranda decision by the Supreme Court wasn't handed down until 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona) so no, no such warnings existed or were required when the TV play and film were written in the 1950s.
That aside, police work back then could routinely be brutal or unconcerned about how and where a suspect was interrogated. In fact, the police would have been more likely to have kept the boy in the room with his father's body in order to break him down. Remember also that Juror 8 mentions that the boy said the policemen who arrested him threw him down a flight of stairs. Keeping him in his apartment with his dead dad was nothing compared to that.
Some jurors make the point that the kid had a bad lawyer -- a public defender, young and inexperienced, overworked and underpaid, who probably believed the kid was guilty and just wasn't interested in giving him an in-depth defense. Today legal incompetence at trial would be cause for an appeal, though establishing this (at least to the point of overturning the verdict and getting a re-trial) would be difficult.