12 Angry Men

Juror 8 begins to pick away at the case in act 2. He brings focus of the case to the testimony of the old man , el train and old woman. What do we learn about the inconsistencies or errors in their testimony?

In act 2, jurors two and four discuss their understanding of 'reasonable doubt' . Do they believe homicide cases should have a ruling of 'reasonable doubt'? Why/why not?

Asked by
Last updated by jill d #170087
Answers 1
Add Yours

In terms of the old man, Juror 8 brings the fact that you can't hear people speaking when a train passes to the forefront.

"This. An el train passes a given point in ten seconds. That given point is the window of the room in which the killing took place. You can almost reach out of the window of that room and touch the el. Right? (Several of them nod.) All right. Now let me ask you this. Did anyone here ever live right next to the el tracks? I have. When your window is open and the train goes by, the noise is almost unbearable. You can't hear yourself think.

"The old man heard the boy say, "I'm going to kill you," and one second later he heard a body fall. One second. That's the testimony, right?"

Juror 8 also brings up the fact that "I'm going to kill you" is a common phrase, which has been used multiple times by most people. The timing of the old man walking (running) through his apartment is questioned as we..



12 Angry Men