Innocent Until Proven Guilty
“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old boy is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the position the knife was in, the man hearing the boy threaten his father, and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the stab wound. The stab wound was inserted downward when the boy’s father was stabbed. Jour number five brought up that an experienced knife fighter know that knife fighters hold the blade upward. The boy on trial has been in a knife fight before and has a lot of experience, so it would raise the question why was the knife wound the knife wound be downward when the boy would have stabbed upward. The boy couldn’t have been the one to stab his father because the background and evidence don’t add up correctly as if one number was missing from the equation and that number that has to be factored in is the position of …show more content…
For one thing he was an old man who’s hearing was fading so how could he hear the boy from downstairs? Not only was the man hard of hearing but it was said that a train that was right by them was going by at the time of the murder. With that being said and with the man being hard of hearing, even if the boy was shouting, there is no way that the man could have heard the boy threaten his father. On a related note, since the man was old and walked with two canes, he could not have possibly gotten up after he heard the commotion and walked all the way to his front door from his bed in the amount of time it would have taken the boy to run out of the building. So basically, the man must have lied about hearing the threat, thud, and the boy
“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old boy is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the position the knife was in, the man hearing the boy threaten his father, and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the stab wound. The stab wound was inserted downward when the boy’s father was stabbed. Jour number five brought up that an experienced knife fighter know that knife fighters hold the blade upward. The boy on trial has been in a knife fight before and has a lot of experience, so it would raise the question why was the knife wound the knife wound be downward when the boy would have stabbed upward. The boy couldn’t have been the one to stab his father because the background and evidence don’t add up correctly as if one number was missing from the equation and that number that has to be factored in is the position of …show more content…
For one thing he was an old man who’s hearing was fading so how could he hear the boy from downstairs? Not only was the man hard of hearing but it was said that a train that was right by them was going by at the time of the murder. With that being said and with the man being hard of hearing, even if the boy was shouting, there is no way that the man could have heard the boy threaten his father. On a related note, since the man was old and walked with two canes, he could not have possibly gotten up after he heard the commotion and walked all the way to his front door from his bed in the amount of time it would have taken the boy to run out of the building. So basically, the man must have lied about hearing the threat, thud, and the boy