Warbler said:

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?

Yes. A bunch of independent coincidences did not add up to me. Were they related to each other better, I might have considered it more strongly. It all seems to be completely unrelated minor coincidences. A guy in my home town shot two people one night. The first was intentional and the guy died, the second was not and the guy lived. He was acquitted of the second because "it's possible," as Henry Fonda would say, that the bullet came from outside. No one else is known to have discharged a weapon. No other gun was tied to the bullet. No other shots were heard. But the jurty determined that because it was "possible," he need not face punishment for that injury. Now that infuriates me, because as Puggo pointed out, nothing is known with absolute certainty, but it is still quite likley that he shot that other guy. I'm guessing that some minor something inconsistency changed their thinking (nothing specific that I read in the paper), and that was enough to change their minds, but come on. We'll never know all the facts, but we can know enough to connect the dots and tell what the picture is.