darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

As for Henry Fonda and A Dozen Grumpy Dudes, I like the film but find the ultimate conclusion faulty. In spite of several little reasons to doubt, the sum total of so much evidence still weighs too heavily in my mind to believe the kid didn't do it. It would be an amazing string of coincidences that would allow all those factors to be in place while the kid remains innocent. Too much speculation. But nevertheless, Fonda's character stuck to his guns, which if you have honest doubts, that's the thing to do.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Yeah, sure the kid probably did it. But that is not the point. The question is, was there or was there not reasonable doubt. There are other knives like the one the kid had. It is doubtful an old man with a limp could have made it to the door to see the kid running down the stairs. It is doubtful the old man could have heard the body hit the floor or the woman scream with the loud train roaring by. The woman who witnessed the crime wore glasses(and no one wears glasses to bed) so her eyesight is in question. With all of that, how could you convict? How could you send the kid off to die? Do you seriously think there isn't reasonable doubt there?

To me there was a little doubt, but to me, reasonable doubt is not the same as beyond any doubt.

it seemed like reasonable doubt to me. With the doubts given, could you really send the kid off to die?

darth_ender said:

I mean, you could find a few things that did not seem to add up, but if 96.5% of it does, that is enough for me. The biggest thing in question was the limping old man, but there can even be reasonable explanations for the time lapse. In any case, you are right about the point. I guess it's just if I wrote the script I would have left slightly more convincing counter evidence...nothing too strong obviously, else the point be lost, but slightly stronger.

I am not sure I understand. Do you mean you wish there was more evidence that the kid didn't do it?