In “12 angry men”, 12 jurors were asked to convict a kid for killing his dad or let him go free. There was many evidences to show the kid was guilty, but juror # 6 was able to debunk every single evidence. I am positive the jurors made a mistake about making fictional reasons to every clue they receive.
I believe this kid is guilty for killing his dad and there’s many evidences to prove that. First, someone heard the kid saying “I’m gonna kill you” from upstairs. Then when the old man came downstairs to his apartment and saw the kid running down the steps away from his door. This alone does not prove his is guilty, but about 4 hours later someone murder the father. This can not be a coincidence that his father died right after the boy yelled
I believe this kid is guilty for killing his dad and there’s many evidences to prove that. First, someone heard the kid saying “I’m gonna kill you” from upstairs. Then when the old man came downstairs to his apartment and saw the kid running down the steps away from his door. This alone does not prove his is guilty, but about 4 hours later someone murder the father. This can not be a coincidence that his father died right after the boy yelled