ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Evidence

587 Words3 Pages

At the end of the play Twelve Angry Men, the jurors decided on the verdict of not guilty. After a long discussion they made the correct decision. The play is a fictional story of a son falsely accused of murdering his father. Twelve men decide the son’s fate. The first piece of evidence used against him was an old lady who saw the murder. The second piece of evidence used against the defendant was an old man hearing him yelling, “I’m gonna kill you.” The defendant is innocent and did not kill his father. One convincing piece of evidence used against the defendant was an eyewitness saying she saw him through the cracks of a train car passing by. If we think about this logically, we can deduce that this feat would be impossible for a person of perfect …show more content…

In the play, Juror 8 states, “I think it's logical to say that she was not wearing her glasses in bed, and I don't think she'd put them on to glance casually out the window. She testified that the murder took place the instant she looked out, and that the lights went out a split second later. She couldn't have had time to put on her glasses then. Now perhaps this woman honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father. Rises. I say that she only saw a blur.” (3.1.61-62) This proves the initial strongest piece of evidence is false. Another piece of evidence used against the defendant was the old man hearing him yell, “I’m gonna kill you!” and seeing him run off. This can be disproven simply by using a timer. The old man states that it took him 15 seconds to get to the crime scene. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, the jurors testify. Juror eight states, “Thirty nine seconds. Thirty nine.” Four: “And the old cripple swore, on his oath, that it was fifteen.”(2.1.41) This disproves the old men’ testimony. He lied about the time frame of the murder, which can no longer be taken as a reliable testimony. If he lied about the time frame, can we even trust him in his account of the

Show More
Related

What Is The Case Of R. V. Bann-Verdict Rationale

1822 Words | 8 Pages

The possible explanation for his action is he knew Ms.King was not in the bed but in the bathroom. He even said himself, that he felt Ms. King moving and turning on the bed beside him. The Fourth one is a doubt that the crowns put in my mind. It was about the possibility that the witnesses could be lying.

Read More

Juror Four Argumentative Essay

568 Words | 3 Pages

9) The testimony of the woman who lived across the el tracks a) The woman testified that she witnessed the murder being committed through the window of her home and the moving el train while in bed. Juror Four recollected that the woman “‘went to bed at about eleven o’clock that night. Her bed was next to the window—and she could look out while lying down and see directly into the boy’s window across the tracks.

Read More

Analyzing Reginald Rose's 'Twelve Angry Men'

745 Words | 3 Pages

Later on, when the jury is discussing his case, juror 9 mentions that she saw the woman across the el had imprints on her nose as if she was just wearing glasses, which potentially means she is visually impaired. As the churros discuss this topic, Juror 9 states, Your eyeglasses make those deep impressions on the sides of your nose, (Rose 69). The woman who testified that she saw the killing had these same deep marks on the sides of her nose, (Rose 69). I'm also guessing that she didn't put on her glasses as she turned and looked casually out the

Read More

12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

524 Words | 3 Pages

To start with, during his trial, there was a woman revealed to be a witness to the murder, a woman that wore bifocals after evaluating hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence (hyperbole). Juror 8 began to explore the possibility that the woman might not have been able to distinctly see who murdered the defendant's father. Through questioning the other jurors, it was decided that she would not have been able to clearly identify who murdered the defendant’s father. After some of the jurors denied wearing their eyeglasses to bed when asked by Juror 8, Juror 8 argued, “‘I think it is logical to say that she was not wearing her glasses in bed, and I don’t think she’d put them on to glance casually out the window.’” Rose.

Read More

Argumentative Essay: The Murder Of Mr. Stephens

548 Words | 3 Pages

They have told you the true story of what happened that fateful night on June 17, 2016. Their testimonies show you that the defendant was not helpless and that she had many opportunities to leave her husband. In addition, their testimonies showed you that the defendant knowingly and premeditatedly murdered her unconscious husband. Unlike the defense, the prosecution and its witnesses have no gain by lying to

Read More

The Narrator's Crime

78 Words | 1 Pages

The narrator murdered, dismembered, and concealed the body of an old man. The evidence suggests that the narrator was perturbed and mentally unstable during the time of the murder. The narrator has also admitted the crime and is expected to take responsibility for his actions. This was inferred based on the fact that he confessed to his crimes and willingly turned himself in. Additionally, the narrator has given the exact location to the body of the perished man.

Read More

Juror's Guilt In 'Twelve Angry Men'

965 Words | 4 Pages

The ruling out of these major pieces of evidence makes an argument for the boy’s guilt extremely difficult, but some would use the point of the old man and how he saw the boy go down the hallway after murdering his father to try and make an argument. The jurors prove that this could have happened by simulating the time of the murder and how fast the old man could have got to the door. Juror 12 states, “So now both time sequences check--the one you did and the one we did; what with running downstairs and everything, it does pretty much check out on time” (Rose

Read More

Jurors Are Not Guilty In 12 Angry Men

1068 Words | 5 Pages

The first testimony is from a witness who is an old man and the testimony is, “A second later he heard a body falling, and he ran to the door of his apartment, looked out and saw the kid running downstairs and out of the house.” (Rose 1.1.18). In this testimony the old man supposedly heard the murder, and then fifteen seconds later the old man makes it from his bedroom to the front door and he sees the young boy running away. The second testimony is from a woman who lived across the street from the defendant. The testimony is summarized by Juror Ten and he says, “Here's a woman who's lying in bed and can't sleep.

Read More

Guilty Of The Boy From 'Twelve Angry Men'

662 Words | 3 Pages

One example of an eyewitness giving a statement that can be disproved is when the downstairs neighbor of the boy and his father claimed to have “heard a body falling, and he ran to the door.” This was later disproved when the jurymen reenacted the scene (as the old man had suffered two strokes, his walking ability was impaired, let alone running). With this, how could a reasonable person still say the boy is guilty when the witness lied? Another reason the boy is innocent is that the knife that the boy had bought just hours before the murder was very similar to the murder weapon. The storekeeper who sold the knife said it was “the only one of its kind”, but the knife was proven more common than he said.

Read More

Examples Of Innocence In 12 Angry Men

333 Words | 2 Pages

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”. According to evidence, the noise of the train passing would be much too loud to hear anything,

Read More

12 Angry Men Fallacies Analysis

1019 Words | 5 Pages

He also made a red herring fallacy during the demonstration of old man witness. iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy. v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it... He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest.

Read More

Evidence In 12 Angry Men

488 Words | 2 Pages

We have the coincidence that the man was murdered just when the train was passing. Due to the proximity of the house and the noise the train emits the old man could not hear anyone scream. The man also argues that fifteen seconds after hearing those words and watching the father's body fall he watched the young man running down the hall. With the help of the building's plans the jury number eight showed that it was impossible for the man to see the young man running down the hallway only 15 seconds after hearing the scream according to the distance between him and the hall.

Read More

Reasonable Doubt In Twelve Angry Men

1011 Words | 5 Pages

Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.

Read More

12 Angry Men Murder Scene Analysis

851 Words | 4 Pages

The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.

Read More

Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

1404 Words | 6 Pages

Could they be wrong? “ – Both the statements listed above involve use of the fallacy of “Begging the question” 3) “How come you believe the woman’s story, she is one of them too, isn’t she?” – This fallacy is what we call as Hasty generalization. According to him, since the woman who gave the testimony against the boy lives in the same locality as the boy, her testimony can also be doubted upon. He tries to convince other jurors with this seemingly inappropriate

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Evidence

Open Document