# "12 Angry Men" -- did a guilty man go free?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/12-angry-men-did-a-guilty-man-go-free/226994>\
**Category:** Cafe Society\
**Created:** [February 1, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/12-angry-men-did-a-guilty-man-go-free/226994 "2004-02-01T04:09:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/12-angry-men-did-a-guilty-man-go-free/226994/81 "2013-10-21T20:02:43Z")

</div>

> [@Human\_Action](#):
>
> The old man’s testimony was actually physically impossible. Not only did he claim to have been able to run from his bed to the door before the killer ran down one flight of stairs (despite being unable to move one leg), he also claimed to have been able to hear, _and identify_, a shout over the sound of the passing train. Lastly, his testimony of the killer fleeing in a mad dash is totally at odds with the knife having been wiped clean of fingerprints.

Maybe I don’t remember this in details from the movie, but doesn’t this exactly make sense. The son wipes the knife free of prints, then runs, and this is in time for the old man to see him.

> [@Human\_Action](#):
>
> Neither witness was credible. The woman wore glasses, and wouldn’t have had them on when she made her supposed identification of the accused with a fleeting glimpse through the windows of a moving train.

Maybe she wore glasses normally, maybe she had just worn sunglasses. Maybe she was reading in bed. It’s at least a little bit of a leap from marks on her nose to concluding that her sworn testimony is certainly false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/12-angry-men-did-a-guilty-man-go-free/226994/82 "2013-10-24T16:30:56Z")

</div>

> [@mr.jp](#):
>
> Maybe I don’t remember this in details from the movie, but doesn’t this exactly make sense. The son wipes the knife free of prints, then runs, and this is in time for the old man to see him.

So, you’re saying the son take the time to wipe fingerprints off the knife, dashes out of the apartment, then goes back hours later, supposedly to get the knife?? How does _that_ make sense?

> [@](#):
>
> Maybe she wore glasses normally, maybe she had just worn sunglasses. Maybe she was reading in bed. It’s at least a little bit of a leap from marks on her nose to concluding that her sworn testimony is certainly false.

It’s enough to cast reasonable doubt on her testimony, especially (as stated earlier) she would have only glimpsed the murderer through the moving windows of an elevated train, at night. Even if the cars were empty (no guarantee there) those are piss-poor conditions.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/12-angry-men-did-a-guilty-man-go-free/226994.md?page=4)