Guilty or not guilty? Cast your vote.
guilty
JEB BUSH IN '012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1957) Discussion > Guilty or not guilty? Cast your vote.
Guilty.
shareEhh, not guilty
Formally known as Coilector
Not guilty, for two reasons: fingerprints wiped clean/coming back to the house; the stabbing motion
x-caitlin-x
Not guilty, Any man who wipes prints clean makes a proper alibi. End of case.
shareIt is IMPOSSIBLE to tell if someone wiped the knife clean or just didn't leave any prints on it - I don't know where the juror got that info from or just assumed that since there were no prints that meant it was wiped - so I guess case open.
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!
Impossible?
shareYes – impossible. How could they have known it was wiped? The lack of any prints does mean that the knife was wiped clean - there just couldn't have been any on the knife - it's not as the movies and TV make it out to be with prints and every item a person touches. The smudging of prints would not indicate it was wiped clean - if there were smudged/unusable prints - that could have easily been attributed to the act of stabbing a knife into a person's chest - the force could smudge any print (if there were any). How could they determine it was wiped clean when nobody saw him wiping it clean? It would have been impossible to tell if it was wiped clean.
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!
The witness's testimonies were all proved unreliable, so what next?
sharePROVED? Only if you base it on the assumptions, baseless "experiment", and their violations of the court.
For example: The lady had marks - but those could have easily been from reading glasses and she could have had perfect far-sighted vision.
The old man - they actually based his top speed on his walk to the witness stand, a time when people take their time. So why would they base his top speed on a time when he is just taking his time? To fit their theory? He could have walked much faster in a time of need or emergency as well as he could have been much faster at the time of the crime - basing his top speed on his walk to the witness stand is absurd and a travesty.
They don't believe anything he testifies about except that he was certain about the 15 seconds. He was certain it was the boy - so why not believe that? They believe what ever fits their theory. If someone was going to be wrong about something it would probably be about exactly how long something took in seconds when you weren't keeping track of that - not the identification of a person you knew and were familiar with. Yet for some "reason" they choose to keep him to the exact second he said - but ignore the rest of the testimony - which is very convenient.
etc.
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!
Guilty as sin.
shareNot guilty. None of the witnesses were reliable.
shareGuilty. If the woman was unable to see clearly how was she able to call the police and report a stabbing, and also get the downward motion of the stab correct? That also nullifies their doubt that she could see through a moving train. The whole argument about you don't stab downwards in a knife fight is irrelevant because we know the father was killed with a downward motion. That the old man is unreliable is based solely on his estimate that it took 15 seconds for him to get to the door. But we also know he did get to the door, in whatever amount of time, and saw someone running. The only real question is did he see him clearly but we are given no reason to believe he did not. What are the chances that someone else killed his father with exactly the same kind of knife the son had just bought? Even under stress would you not remember the name of a movie you just saw? You might mess up a word in the title but apparently he remembered nothing during questioning. The jury should not have assumed an incompetent defense because certain questions were never asked. If the defense knows the answer will be damning he won't ask a question. That is as likely an assumption as incompetence.
Obviously, as a work of fiction, the conclusion is whatever the writer wants it to be, but as written, he does a poor job of creating exculpatory evidence.
It's not hard to push 3 buttons on a phone. I could dial the police with my eyes closed. It's harder to see 60ft at night with poor vision.
The argument with the knife isn't irrelevant, because we know the boy is an experienced knife fighter, and we know an experienced knife fighter would never used a switchblade like that.
We know the old man said he saw someone running. We don't know what he actually saw. Besides, say he did see him. If he just saw his back, dashing down a flight of stairs, it's possible it was just someone with a similar height and hair colour.
His father had just died, and his body was still within feet of him. The boy was probably in shock. I wouldn't trust myself to remember anything in that situation, especially if I'm questioned by two probably quite bias detectives (who I wouldn't expect to be very considerate).
The point isn't that the evidence concludes the boys guilt, it's that it creates a reasonable doubt.
Not guilty.
It's not hard to push 3 buttons on a phone.
Remember, this was in the 1950's. It would have been a dial phone, not buttons. share
And no 911 either. You would have to dial 0 for Operator to be connected to police, or know the station number already.
- - -
"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."share
If the woman is nearsighted, her vision would be far too blurry for a reliable identification at 60 feet. I'm nearsighted, I'd have a hard time doing it beyond 10. She could see the outline of what was happening (the guy being stabbed), but there's no way she could reliably identify who it was doing it.
shareNot guilty. The old man could have seen somebody else if he did see anybody at all. We all know someone could lie for the attention or any reason at all-there can be hundreds. He was old, not able to walk, probably missing care and attention so he presented himself younger (being able to come to the door in 15 sec.) just to prove that he is still worth something. And I doubt that he was able to hear anything because of the train. Some of you say that the woman saw everything and she must have, because she dialed the police immediately-you presume that she was able to see without her glasses, but what does immediately mean? I think it could mean that she took 1 second to put on her glasses and then dial the number. Do you think someone would take that as important when testifying? ''...I saw him stab his father and I ran to put my glasses on and call the police...''-I think not. And do you think a woman who hides that she wears ones would mention that?
As for the story about the boy not remembering the movies he went to-I think it's possible. Not just because of the stress but because of the fact- where he lived and how. Personally, I think kids brought up on that kind of a place are often poorly educated and the questions are: Did that boy really know how to read well? Maybe he went to the cinema not caring for the films but just to get out of the house? A lot of people in stress go somewhere and they are not really present-Just because he went to the cinema doesn't mean he was into the movie. We all watch or read something when our head is full of thoughts and after we can't remember what we saw.And if people working in the cinema are able to remember all the people that came in, they should get a medal. I could really go on and on...
The old man could have seen somebody else if he did see anybody at all.
Any witness COULD be wrong - that doesn't mean you negate their testimony because there is a possibility they could be wrong.
We all know someone could lie for the attention or any reason at all-there can be hundreds. He was old, not able to walk, probably missing care and attention so he presented himself younger (being able to come to the door in 15 sec.)
Anyone COULD lie for attention. Are you implying because he is old his testimony should be doubted because of that? So now old people aren't even given the same credibility on the stand as others because they have a propensity to lie because they need attention? What a wonderful stereotype. What makes you believe he was missing care and attention? His clothing was torn so now he wants attention?
And I doubt that he was able to hear anything because of the train.
So why did he hurry to the door? If he didn't hear anything - why could he feel the need to get to the door to see the suspect running? There were fights above before - why go to the door this time if he didn't hear the threat. If he just heard the thump on the floor - why would that necessitate a run to investigate the see the suspect running.
Some of you say that the woman saw everything and she must have, because she dialed the police immediately-you presume that she was able to see without her glasses, but what does immediately mean?
It's not the fact that she called immediately - but she told the police the victim was stabbed. If she couldn't see that well - she wouldn't be able to distinguish between a stabbing and an overhand hit with a club, or hand, etc.
I think it could mean that she took 1 second to put on her glasses and then dial the number. Do you think someone would take that as important when testifying? ''...I saw him stab his father and I ran to put my glasses on and call the police...''-I think not. And do you think a woman who hides that she wears ones would mention that?
You're assuming she needed glasses for near-sighted. She could have been far-sighted and saw everything fine without glasses and didn't mention it because she didn't need glasses. She might not have even used glasses other than sunglasses and thus wouldn't mention it.
I don't know why people are accusing her of hiding a fact that she wore glasses - when they don't have any idea what kind of glasses made those marks. They accuse her of trying to look young - and thus would lie on the stand. If this was the case - virtually every woman (and man) wouldn't be able to testify because most people try to look younger - whether its using make-up, working out, etc.
As for the story about the boy not remembering the movies he went to-I think it's possible.
Yes - it's possible - can't argue with that. It's possible a person could go to the movies and then seconds later not remember anything about it - but that doesn't mean it's reasonable - or you just discount his lack of alibi because it's possible. The lack of alibi doesn't mean he did it - but it is a piece of the larger puzzle. You have to remember - just hours of seeing this movie - he couldn't remember ONE SINGLE THING about it. Add that to the fact that nobody could identify him at the movies, going to the movies, coming from the movies - it is pretty damning.
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers! share
Given that he was charged with premeditated murder I am not sure if I could vote guilty. My gut feeling is the kid probably did it but I doubts it was premeditated
shareI agree: even by the prosecution's own evidence, this was a crime of passion, not premeditated (first dgeree murder). By itself that would be reason to convict for second degree murder at best. But the inconsistencies and doubts raised have to lead to his being found not guilty by reasonable doubt -- which was Juror #7's point: not that the kid's innocent, only that there wasn't enough incontrovertible evidence to convict.
Cinematically, given the apprehensive/innocent/hopeful look on the kid's face at the start, I think the audience is supposed to be cued into thinking he's not guilty.
not guilty!
share