April 25, 2013
12 Angry Men
In the film Twelve Angry Men, all jury members discussed the evidence of a boy's murder trial. It seems as though it should be an easy, unanimous vote for guilty however after hours of analyzing and discussing the evidence it comes down to the most powerful evidence; the eye witnesses. How reliable really were the eye witnesses to the boy's murder? The most convincing testimonies do not always add up as proven by this jury. Factors such as, less than ideal observation, shortness of period of observation, and personal biases all prove that eyewitnesses can be very unreliable
The woman says she witnessed the stabbing through the last 2 cars of the el. train at the time of 12:10. This woman is in her mid forties and wears glasses. Everyone agreed that someone wearing glasses would remove them before bed. This would mean that the woman had less than ideal observation because of the her conditions. The first point was that is was night time so the lighting was not too great and once she saw the stabbing the lights when out immediately.
The second point is that the distance from her apartment to his was around 60 feet away and by her not wearing any glasses it would be hard to have a great visual. With these facts, it would be very difficult to see the murder take place at night, through the last two cars of a moving train, without glasses in that very short period of time.
The womans personal bias was also a factor showing unreliability in her testimony. She has known the boy her entire life and knows that the family has always been arguing and the father has been an abusive one. She figured since the father and son has always had problems, it must have been him who had done the stabbing. Another element to the bias was that she was an attention seeker. At she made a tremendous effort to look as young as possible at her court appearance. She wanted her time in the spotlight...