Okay, this thread inspired me to watch the film (yay Netflix!). I think the kid probably did it, but I would have voted not guilty. What hangs me up is that the charge is premeditated murder. He bought the knife a few days before and showed it to his friends? I’d say that’s a point in his defense. If you buy a weapon for the purpose of murdering someone, you don’t show it to anyone. Plus, people commit murder with weapons they’ve owned for years. And as was discussed, people say “I’m gonna kill you” about as often as they say “I’m dying of thirst.” Doesn’t make either one true. If it was murder two, not premeditated, I’d vote guilty, but not for murder one, premeditated.
I’m flashing back to the O.J. trial, or maybe the runup to it, where a big deal was made of O.J. having bought a knife a week or so before the murders. Someone I knew said, “But it’s not a question of when he bought what knife. It could have been any knife, or a garden tool that was on the ground. It’s a question of, was he there? If he was there, he did it; doesn’t matter with what.” The kid bought a knife because he was a punk. I’d actually be more suspicious of a wholesome kid who had bought a Swiss Army knife a week before his father turned up dead.
Also, I forget: did they get anything to eat? Because I’m thinking of the cartoon where the foreman gives the lunch order. “Eleven cheeseburgers and one hot dog. Eleven large fries and one onion rings. Eleven colas and one lemonade.”
(And on thinking it over, another first-ever-viewing I Netflixed this year was 1776. Which is essentialy 12 Angry Colonies. Yes, there were thirteen, but the Carolinas voted as a unit, so effectively twelve. Though I can’t quite see Henry Fonda singing “Vooooooote notguilty.”)
I don’t believe that kid was guilty. The fact that father was only stabbed once is one of the factors that lead me to believe that. Personally motivated murders are usually much more brutal. Also, the fact that the same kind of knife was used isn’t that much of an evidence. The kid could have easily lost somewhere inside the house and the real killer could use it because it was convenient. And even if that wasn’t the case, the way I understood it, those types of knives were really common in that area. And it wasn’t really safe neighborhood. As for kid not rembering the movie: as other posters noticed in other thread, he probably didn’t even go to the movies for sake of watching them, but for sake of being anywhere else but home. He probably payed little to no attention to the movie, he just wanted to cool of from the fight. Long story short I believe that it was a burglary gone wrong.
I don’t agree with the appeals of “who does that?” type thinking. Criminals do stupid things all the time, including bragging about how they got away with it. Even smart people will do dumb things in the heat of the moment.
I recently saw a high-school production of 12 Angry Jurors. This is, of course, the same play, but with some number of the cast (about half, in this case), played by girls. The production was quite good, and I enjoyed it. A few days later, I watched the Henry Fonda movie, which had known of, but never seen.
I was struck by how the entire dynamic of the story was changed by the mixed-sex cast. The interrelations and confrontations between the various jurors were very different. The members of the jury who bullied the other jurors were more and less effective depending on the pairings; the ones who were distracted or uninterested similarly differed from the original. The extroverted advertising guy’s entire demeanor changed.
That’s one of the things that makes this play/movie a classic: It’s so driven by the acting, that it’s different with every cast (and the corresponding interpersonal relationships) that presents it. And, of course, it’s an excellent showcase for really good acting, when you get it.