The case in 12 Angry Men was a very interesting argument between 12 jurors about the unavoidable future of a young boy charged with a crime of murdering his father. There were great arguments for both sides but in the end my opinion is complicated. I think that, yes, he may have killed his dad, but he is not guilty because there was reasonable doubt in my mind. All of the facts pointed him guilty at first, but none of it was concrete enough to make him guilty. The woman looking across the el train, the old man seeing the boy run down the stairs, and the way the killer stabbed in the chest. All of these facts had a small/short doubt of being true, so they had to be thrown out as events or objects that prove something. First of all the woman who was tossing and turning trying to fall asleep and looks out her window and sees a an killing another man. She automatically thought it was the boy killing his she knew that was there apartment and she knew of the boy’s history. Juror number eight proved false this by pointing out that the woman wore lenses worn on the face that improve vision, and that usually when you go to bet you take of your lenses worn on the face that improve vision. She said that she looked out the window and in a split second saw the murder. Without her lenses worn on the face that improve vision she wouldn’t have seen anything, especially across to another building and through a train that was moving compared to other things fast to see through when moving. Now about the old man who said he heard someone yell, “I’m going to kill you!” then a body hitting the ground. He ran to the door and saw the boy running down the stairs. He said took about 15 seconds to make it from the time he collect together animals the body hit the floor until the boy ran down the stairs. The man was in his room, he was an old man and when he walked he would scrape his foot on the ground, so he didn’t walk to fast. Juror number eight pointed all of this out and then did an experiment. He walked the same distance from the man’s room to the front door while dragging his foot. It took about 40 seconds to make the distance while dragging your foot. So the started thinking he was a lying. Another good point made was that the woman said the murder happened as the last car of an el train roared by the room. How could the man hear him yell at his father then hear a body falling on the ground if the el train, which makes a huge/extreme amount of noise, was going by. Finally to the point about the stabbing. The boy was carefully thought about/believed a very good knife fighter and he admitted to buying a switchblade on the knight of the murder, the same model found in the man’s dead body. That is a good point but the boy says he lost the blade on the same night before the murder. An experienced knife holder would hold the knife underhand, not overhand how the killing was. He would have stabbed from down up, not up down. I think in my mind the young boy is not guilty because of reasonable doubt, because I still think he may have killed his father. The witnesses and events or objects that prove somethings are not definite enough to call him guilty. The woman wasn’t wearing here glasses, the old man couldn’t make it to the door in time and wouldn’t have been able to here the boy say or do anything, and the way the killer stabbed the victim. The things pointed out against the events or objects that prove something) causes the reasonable doubt that makes him not guilty.