MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1957) Discussion > The only contrived element of the story

The only contrived element of the story

posted 9 years ago by dunlap-mark64
16 replies | jump to latest

Juror 8 talked about the idea that just because whomever stabbed the victim shouted "I'm going to kill you!" doesn't mean much of anything, because lots of people commonly say something like that without meaning it. It's a downright dumb "point" to make, and the only reason it was included in the movie was because it set up a dramatic show-down between jurors 8 and 3 several minutes later: juror 8 said to 3, "You want the boy to die because you personally want it, not because of the facts. You're a sadist!" That caused 3 to lunge at 8, while saying "I'm going to kill him!" Then 8 calmly replied, "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?"

Okay, so that near-fight was dramatic, but nonetheless for juror 8 to talk as if the fact that somebody shouted "I'm going to kill you" a second before a victim was, unmistakably, indisputably, killed because it's possible that the person who shouted it didn't actually "mean" what they literally said ...... that's just plain ridiculous and dumb. It was a weak, contrived bit of dialogue only included for the sake of a build-up to a dramatic event.

[–] Bravesfan82 9 years ago

I think you're a bit confused.

The son was heard (by neighbors) saying to his father "I'm going to kill you" earlier that night, not immediately before the killing took place.

Hours later, the father was killed.

Juror #8 was arguing that just because the son threatened the father, it doesn't mean that he was necessarily the one who actually killed him. Juror #3 proves this point, by saying the same thing. He obviously doesn't intend to kill Juror #8, but it's just something some people say while they're angry.

It wasn't contrived or dumb.

"I don't want Fop, Goddamn it! I'm a Dapper Dan man!"

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

Bravesfan82 - I believe you are wrong - he said he was going to kill his father momements before it happened. This does make a big difference and the original poster does have a valid point. First off, if you make a threat to kill someone and then that person dies - that is different than making a threat with 12 other people standing around and nobody is dead.

So saying your going to kill someone doesn't mean you are going to or you will, but threatening to kill someone and that person does die just after the threat does have a different implication. Sure it isn't proof positive you did it - but it is a damning piece of the broad puzzle.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] Bravesfan82 9 years ago

My mistake, I'm sorry.

The son supposedly said the line to his father, but it was proven that the E train was passing overhead at the same exact time and the old man living under the victim's apartment wouldn't have been able to hear anything anyway.

"I don't want Fop, Goddamn it! I'm a Dapper Dan man!"

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

it was proven that the E train was passing overhead at the same exact time and the old man living under the victim's apartment wouldn't have been able to hear anything anyway.

It in no way shape or form was proven he couldn't have heard it. Another jury said in HIS apartment in a different area - it was too loud - but that was not in this apartment - also this train wasn't doing a normal schedule - it was going back to the depot which could have been much slower and thus quieter. So it wasn't "proven" that he could not have heard it.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] StakkaDakka 9 years ago

But the defense (Fonda) argument is that somebody else entirely committed the crime. He contends that the old man already knew the kid's voice because he lived in his building, so it means nothing that he was able to identify it in court. Therefore, it was an assumption only that the boy was the one who said the comment, as all he heard was somebody yell something, over the noise of a train , through 2 open windows and down a floor of a building. So, even if do attach an important meaning/motive to the comment, we still don't know that it was the boy who said it, instead of the unknown assailant.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

He contends that the old man already knew the kid's voice because he lived in his building, so it means nothing that he was able to identify it in court.

Not sure where you are getting this from - but even if you know a person's voice before hand - if you can identify it as the voice that made the threat at the time of the crime - that would mean a lot in court. The old man testified he heard the son make the threat - the fact that he knew what he sounded like before hand - does not take anything away from it. It wasn't an assumption however, the old man testified he heard him. He obviously heard the words or why would he go to the door to try and see the assailant. So if he was able to hear the words - is it that far of a stretch that he could identifiy the son? Either way - the jury used the scenario of a different building and train that wasn't going to depot for the night - therefore they were basing their theories on assumptions.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] StakkaDakka 9 years ago

From the script:

Look, the old man knows the boy's voice very well. They've lived in the same house for years. But to identify it' positively from the apartment downstairs. .. Isn't it possible he was wrong -- that maybe he thought the boy was upstairs and automatically decided that the voice he heard was'the boy's voice?

There is doubt over
a) What was actually said
b) Who actually said it
c) Whether the boy saying 'I'm gonna kill you' even means anything important at all

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

Just because there is a possibility a witness is wrong does not mean you discredit them. Every single witness that has ever testified COULD be wrong.

Isn't it possible he was wrong -- that maybe he thought the boy was upstairs and automatically decided that the voice he heard was'the boy's voice?

It's an idiotic question by the juror. You can say that with any witness. Isn't it possible all 100 witness were wrong? Yes. Even if you had 100 witnesses who claim to see/hear the same thing - it IS possible they ALL were wrong.

The old man went to the door to see if he could see the suspect fleeing. If he didn't hear the threat - why would he rush to the door? Is it another coincidence that he thought he heard someone say they were going to kill someone one and there was actually a murder. He knew the kids voice - true - but that doesn't mean he is assuming the voice was the kids because he lived there. How about the other scenario - he knows the kids voice - he then heard and recognized the kids’ voice. You are now discounting every witness who knew their assailant or criminal in similar situations. They only thought it was them because they already know them. You only think it was your husband who assaulted you because he is the only one you would expect to be in your house. The reasoning is amusing that the old man could be wrong because he knows the boy who lives in the apartment above and therefore you should discredit his testimony.

As for C - Those words might not mean anything most of the time - but when they are said and then a murder takes place seconds later - then it does mean something important. It is a piece of the puzzle. If you witness a person threaten another person and then soon after that person is dead - you wouldn't consider that important? Sure it's not definitive proof he killed that person - but it sure is important to the case. When the juror threatened #8 there was a big difference - #8 never died. If #8 was murdered in the bathroom just after #3 threatened him - you don't think that would be important - not that it is definitive he did kill him - but you don't think it would be important in a case. You actually think the other jurors shouldn't even tell the police that he made the threat since it wouldn't be important?

User Error Please Try Again

[–] shubhankashivashankar 9 years ago

I agree with some of the points that you made. For example, if there is a possibility that a witness is wrong, it does not mean we discredit his/her witnessing. But that would hold good only in case of a ceteris paribus (other things being constant). In the present case, Juror #8 has made it clear with his arguments about other witnesses and evidences that it is more probable (with the other witnesses and evidences) that the boy did not kill his father. Since there were no other evidences that could concur with the (initial) witness being right, and since there is no alternative source which ends up to the statements of the (initial) witness (please note that all other witnesses and evidences were reasonably discredited), then only in such situations, it would be logical and cogent to entertain the possibility that the (initial) witness COULD have been wrong. That is, in normal scenario, it would be true. And Juror #8 wouldn’t be saying this in all of his cases. Since there is nothing that substantiates the claims of the (initial) witness, I believe Juror #8 making such a statement is diligent and correct.

Secondly, you spoke about being able to get to hear the voice of the boy every day and about recognizing it in the court. Even for this, I think I need to give you the same answer. In a normal scenario, you can say it like that. But given the conditions, established that the other witnesses and evidences are more likely to be invalid, entertaining a possibility that the old man could have thought the boy would be upstairs and therefore thought the voice that he heard say “I am going to kill you” should have been that of the boy’s, is completely a well thought-of point.

Please note here that I did not refute that the old man heard “I am going to kill you”. This is because, as you said, there would be no other reason for the old man to get up from his bed and walk to the front door. So I do second the old man hearing the voice, but I am saying it couldn’t have been that of the boy’s. Reason 1 is because the old man knows the boy and the father live above his house. So a shout from their house would automatically make the old man think it could have been the boy’s voice. Reason 2 is because of the train moving exactly at that time, making it less convenient for the old man to have heard the shout with perfect clarity, for the old man to be contending it to be that of the boy's. Reason 3 is that the old man could not have walked as far within just 15 seconds, as established by Juror #8, making the old man’s statements subject to doubt. Reason 4 is that the house above the old man’s house is exactly the same as that of his, which means that the murder took place exactly above his head. Please note the diagram of the house, and Juror #8 explains the place of the old man’s bed. This room has only one window, and if the old man claims he had it open and that’s how he was able to hear the shout, the murder must have taken place in the bedroom directly above that. This means, the murderer had to get out in the exact same way as the old man could. Therefore, there is enough clarity that the murderer can run much faster than the old man’s crippled walk, allowing him to escape quickly, making the old man reach late to the door. Even if you assume the murder did not take place directly above his head, but took place in the living room (even there is a window, and the neighbor woman could have referred to this window), the murderer can still outrun the old man. I know you can claim the murderer could have spent few seconds after the murder (in shock) to start his run, but I am just giving you another reason how the old man’s contention of him seeing the murderer could have been wrong. Reason 5 is that the incident took place at close to midnight. Therefore, the old man could have seen another person and assumed it was the boy (again, just giving you the possibility, even if this can be argued upon).

Back to my original point, I do not refute that the old man heard someone shout “I am going to kill you”. Nor am I saying the old man did not see someone walk past the stairs. I am just saying it could not have been the boy; it could have been the murderer. With this, I still would say that Juror #8 doubting the integrity of the old man, and doubting whether the old man saw the boy or the murderer, is perfectly valid in this situation.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

Since there were no other evidences that could concur with the (initial) witness being right, and since there is no alternative source which ends up to the statements of the (initial) witness (please note that all other witnesses and evidences were reasonably discredited), then only in such situations, it would be logical and cogent to entertain the possibility that the (initial) witness COULD have been wrong.

First two witnesses corroborated each other’s testimony as far as the time of the murder and who the murderer was. (IMO they were not in any way reasonably discredited. All they did was make assumption after assumption). They were two independant witnesses who had completely different perspectives and were able to corroborate the time of death as well as identify the suspect. Second. The woman told police that it was a stabbing and the knife in the father would corroborate that statement. You can entertain the possibility that the witness could be wrong - and should entertain it - but that doesn't mean it was wrong or that it would lend itself to reasonable doubt at the end.

Reason 1 is because the old man knows the boy and the father live above his house. So a shout from their house would automatically make the old man think it could have been the boy’s voice.

That would NOT automatically make the old man think it was the boy's. Why would you assume that? He didn't say he heard the father yell it- did he. How did he know it was the son and not the father who made the threat? Why didn't he identify the father as the person running down the hall? Either way - there is the obvious scenario that the old man knew the son's voice and correctly recognized the threat as the son. Given your theory - no matter how clear or loud it was - they could be wrong because they would only be assuming it was the son.

But given the conditions, established that the other witnesses and evidences are more likely to be invalid,

They weren't giving the conditions of the murder. The train was going back to the depot so it wasn't necessarily the same as what the juror was used to. Also trains are definitely louder on certain tracks and at certain parts of the track then at other places. Also, certain building have thicker walls and thinner ceilings - so this juror has no idea what it is like to hear the son at that time in that building. Also the juror could have worse hearing than the old man (let's not assume all the elderly have bad hearing).

I could entertain the theory that there isn't enough evidence to convict the son - but there is no way shape or form any evidence that demonstates the son didn't do it. He didn't have an alibi, he had access to the murder weapon, and he motive. Nothing in any theory I have heard exonerates him from doing it - at best (which is obviously debatable) theories can argue there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Reason 3 is that the old man could not have walked as far within just 15 seconds

Why does it have to be exactly 15 seconds? Because that's what the old man testified to? He also testified he saw the son? Why do you believe he was right about the 15 seconds and wrong about seeing a person he actually knows and can identifiy? Wouldn't the more likely scenario be he wasn't exact about the 15 seconds and right about seeing the son who he is familiar with? Let's face it knowing how long it took you to do a task you weren't timing isn't going to perfect. This morning I heard my neighbor walking his dog so I went to the door to ask him something but he was already passing. I saw him for two seconds but knew it was him (as we talked later). I can't tell you exactly how long it took for me to get up and go through two rooms, unlock my door and look for him outside, but I can tell you it was him. So more to my point - if he was going to wrong about one thing - it would probably be about the time. Secondly - this jury has absolutely no idea how fast this man could walk at the time of the crime. For goodness sake - they based his top speed on his walk to the witness stand - a time when virtually everyone takes their time. They don't know if his condition worsened since the crime or how fast he could go in a time of need or emergency.

the murderer can still outrun the old man. I know you can claim the murderer could have spent few seconds after the murder (in shock) to start his run, but I am just giving you another reason how the old man’s contention of him seeing the murderer could have been wrong.

The son could have taken time to see if the hallway was clear. Perhaps he did take time to clear his mind. Either way - sure you can give another reason how the old man COULD have been wrong. Heck - I could give you many more reasons why he COULD be wrong, but that doesn't mean he was. Once again there are many reasons every witness COULD be wrong - that doesn't we should discount their testimony.

Nor am I saying the old man did not see someone walk past the stairs. I am just saying it could not have been the boy; it could have been the murderer.

You have given many reasons why it MIGHT NOT be the son - but where in all of your theories could you deduce that it could NOT have been the boy.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] el_pombo 9 years ago

This is very interesting!

Here's what I think... most times, when a person is stabbed he/she doesn't drop to the floor right away, and even when that happens, the person usually doesn't drop like a sack of potatoes, because in most cases he/she does not lose consciousness until several seconds or minutes after the stabbing.

So... the lady says she saw the stabbing trough the last two carriages of the train, meaning that it's possible the old man couldn't have head the boy threatening his father because of the noise. At least the prosecution didn't address that issue, so, we have to assume it's possible he couldn't have heard it.

Nevertheless, if he didn't drop to the floor the very instant he was stabbed - which most likely would have happened - then the old man could have heard him dropping to the floor AFTER the train had passed, thus moving to the door to see what had happened.

He then could have just caught a glimpse of the murderer fleeing and assumed it was the man's son, just like the lady who, without glasses, witnessed the murder and assumed the man's son to be the perpetrator.

If it's possible the old man didn't hear the boy threatening his father and just made himself believe he had heard it, then it's also possible that he made himself believe the person he saw was the man's son.

The lady could very easily have imagined she saw the boy because that's what made most sense to her, since she wasn't wearing glasses and couldn't have had a good look at the killer.

They could both consciously or unconsciously be looking for attention, and the circumstances make it reasonable to assume that they could have made a mistake.

The movies and the knife prove nothing.

I don't consider it proven beyond the reasonable doubt, so I vote NOT GUILTY!!! :)

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

The movies and the knife prove nothing.

The knife is one of the most damning pieces in this case. Even if there were a dozen of these knives - the odds the killer used the exact same knife the son just bought that same day just after getting hit by the father and then just happen to "lose" hours later - would be astronomical. In the movie - a juror even tells Fonda - it would be a million to one - but Fonda's "comeback" is - but isn't it possible. No kidding - even if it was trillion to one - it would still be possible. The juror made a valid argument that was glossed over by Fonda saying but isn't it possible.

The movie doesn't prove he committed murder - but it does show that he doesn't have a valid alibi. It is just another piece of the puzzle.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] mxzt 9 years ago

I still believe just because someone says he's going to kill someone, doesn't necessarily mean they will kill. That phrase is said all the time for whatever reasons. But rarely do you see someone actually killing someone after saying a phrase like that.

And why do you have to say it in the first place? just do it. I've been in many fights, there is hardly any talk. You just start fighting. And same thing would happen here, it will be instinctive reaction to just kill if you're going to do it. For someone to proclaim it just before is ridiculous and not realistic.

So the old man may have just made all that up. Why believe in this old man who's had a stroke statement? He could be just hearing things.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

I still believe just because someone says he's going to kill someone, doesn't necessarily mean they will kill.

I agree 100% with that - but don’t you think that if someone said it - then that person turns up dead seconds later - that would be important to a case. It doesn't definitively mean they did the killing - but it certainly is an important part of the broader picture IMO.

Now although I have never been there for a murder - I have heard people make threats before a fight. I'm gonna F- you up, I'm gonna kick your A-, etc - You can YouTube/Google fights in which the aggressor states what he intends to do and then does it.

Why believe in this old man who's had a stroke statement? He could be just hearing things.

Or he could have heard the son make the threat just before he killed the father.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] mxzt 9 years ago

I agree 100% with that - but don’t you think that if someone said it - then that person turns up dead seconds later - that would be important to a case. It doesn't definitively mean they did the killing - but it certainly is an important part of the broader picture IMO.

Yes if that happened at that time, it would be important. But I just don't find it realistic that someone would have to proclaim they will kill someone. I find it more realistic is if they just do it, without having to declare they will do that deed.

Also, can we trust a 75 year old man who has suffered a stroke and possibly doesn't have the best hearing? For all we know he could be just hearing things or making it up for attention.

Now although I have never been there for a murder - I have heard people make threats before a fight. I'm gonna F- you up, I'm gonna kick your A-, etc - You can YouTube/Google fights in which the aggressor states what he intends to do and then does it.

You're right some people do make threats. But for me personally all it takes is a stare to know a fight will happen or not. Most of the fights I've been involved in just happen spontaneously without much talk if not at all.

Btw I've seen you on this board for years. You obviously love talking about this movie. I'm just curious if you don't mind me asking are you a lawyer by chance? Or work in that field?

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

Also, can we trust a 75 year old man who has suffered a stroke and possibly doesn't have the best hearing? For all we know he could be just hearing things or making it up for attention.

Just because a man is old does not mean he doesn't have good hearing. There is no evidence what so ever that would indicate his hearing is impaired. You can't or at least shouldn't just assume because someone is old or had a stroke they have hearing problems.

You're right some people do make threats. But for me personally all it takes is a stare to know a fight will happen or not. Most of the fights I've been involved in just happen spontaneously without much talk if not at all.

I'm not saying that isn't how it happened with your fights - but the fact is that people do make threats before they actually do the act. This could have been a very emotional heated arguement - the son was hit earlier and maybe he felt he wanted to make the father know what was coming first. Maybe he just blurted it out from his anger.

As for what I do - I haven't answered that yet for a couple reasons. Privacy and I don't want my job to influence my debate. I try to back my posts up with law papers, facts of the law, New York State jury rules of conduct etc. - I am involved in the process to a great extent - however - I won't go into specifics.

User Error Please Try Again