Did you think the kid was guilty?

"In order to get those marks on your nose you have to wear your glasses for quite a while, she would have had to have been reading for a while before she took the bench in order to get those marks on her nose. It was pretty much proven that she was assuming what she saw. She knew the people across the way so she just assumed it was the boy. And seriously how accurately can you see things through an El Train, empty or not?'

Many witnesses wait in the waiting room and read for hours before getting called to the stand. It's not uncommon to be waiting for hours upon hours to be called. She could have gotten those marks just from reading as she was waiting to be called. They proved nothing. I have noticed people on the other side of NYC subways as it is moving - no problem.

As for the old man - they have no idea how fast this man could move in time of emergency or need. They based their assumption on his walk to the stand - a time when virtually everyone takes their time. They don't even know his condition at the time of the incident. He also did see someone running down the stairs - so unless he is flat out lying then he did make to the door in time or it's another big coincidence that someone else is running down the hall just after the murder.


You can scream now if you want.

1. "the knife wasn't unique” - it was never claimed to be unique just unusual which it clearly was. It doesn't matter if there was 1, 2, or 10 of these knives. The odds that the killer chose this same knife instead of a steak knife, a hunting knife, a gun, a chair, a bat, a pipe, a rope, his hands, a different kind of switch blade, etc are astronomical.

2. "was highly unlikely for a trained knife-fighter” - first off that is wrong. A trained knife-fighter is or should be trained to use the knife in different ways - including overhand. If a knife-fighter only used one way of stabbing - then he would be easy to defend. He even might have started underhand - but he could have got deflected and went to an overhand. Second - this wasn't necessarily a "knife-fight". It wasn't as if he was getting into his West Side Story Jets vs. Sharks stance - this was a domestic incident gone bad - he might have wanted to just plunge this knife as deep as he could into his father. Thirdly - the fact is someone did use a switchblade and did use an overhand stab.

3. None of the jurors know how loud the train was in that spot at that time. They don't know how thin the ceiling was or how thick the walls were. So even with open windows - the walls will make a difference and the ceilings will also.
They don't know if the train was quieter on that run or louder. Some stated they knew how loud it was from where they were - but not in this apartment - and if you lived in the city - you would know that trains can be loud in certain areas and not in others and certain apartments have thinner ceilings and better walls than others.

4. “the lady was wearing glasses and while it's sure that she saw *someone* stabbing the man, we can't be sure that it was the boy.” Can you ever be “sure” that any witness is right? Never. The lady testified she saw the boy – who she knew. There was no apparent reason for her to lie. She could have worn reading glasses just before her testimony – which can leave those marks as I have seen many who just wear reading glasses leave them. Many witnesses read before testifying because they can be waiting for hours. The prosecution usually doesn’t do eye tests and the defense can challenge any testimony. They might not have here because they knew she had good far sighted vision, and obviously wouldn’t bring that up in court.

5. Remembering the movie at court time means absolutely nothing – his lawyer could have found out everything about the movie and told him. As far as not remembering at the time – I could see not remembering an actor or actress or the complete title – but he remembered absolutely nothing – it was just hours after the movie – stress or no stress. Now that that doesn’t prove he wasn’t there – it’s just a piece of the big puzzle.

Now much of this you brought up – but don’t seem to see the validity in it. We are dealing with reasonable doubt – not “doubt”. There can be doubt in every single case ever presented. You can have a video, fingerprints, DNA, etc – but that doesn’t mean there is 100% proof the defendant did it. Videos can be altered, fingerprints examiners can be wrong, DNA isn’t 100% accurate, there can be twins involved, etc. We have to deal with the evidence at hand. This is a solid case. Now reasonable doubt is subjective so we can disagree without either being “wrong”, but I just don’t see how nitpicking every scenario until there is an iota of a farfetched doubt on each of the many pieces of evidence will accomplish anything. You might as well as throw the whole system out because I can guarantee you I can cast doubt on every case ever presented – it might not be reasonable doubt but it is doubt.

As in the movie – they bring up the points we brought up – but they just overlook them. For example – (paraphrasing) with the knife – when he brings the second knife in – they say – so what – even if there were multiple knives the odds would be astronomical that the killer chose that same knife. #8 then states – but it is possible. Sure it’s “possible” but you can’t just ignore that fact that the odds would be astronomical just because it is “possible”. That is unreasonable. They do this throughout the movie – they show that it could be “possible” so they ignore the fact that although possible – it would be unreasonable to believe that all these “possibilities” put together would not amount to “reasonable” doubt. Put together the astronomical odds reference the knife, the witnesses, the lack of alibi, the history of knife fighting and violence, how he just bought and “lost” his knife that same day after getting hit by his father – and I don’t see reasonable doubt. Now the jury did see reasonable doubt – which I don’t have a problem with – it is how they came up with that doubt that I don’t see as logical.


You can scream now if you want.

It would have been impossible to tell if the knife was "cleaned" or just no fingerprints were left. Leaving prints isn't as easy as TV and the movies portray it to be. The knife was ornate and thin - this makes it less conducive to leave prints. More importantly - he used this to stab the victim - by stabbing the knife into someone tends to move the hand over the knife -the slightest movement of the hand over the knife would smudge a fingerprint - thus making it useless. Also there are many factors that are needed to leave a print. The surface has to be conducive to it, the fingers need a substance on them (if he washed his hands it would be very tough to leave viable prints), the print couldn't be smudged (even the slightest movement would ruin a print and could make it look like smudge and not even a print), and the right pressure would have to be used (too much would smudge, too little would make it too light).

It would have been impossible to tell why there were no prints on the knife - they couldn't tell if it was wiped or not - it would only be an assumption to conclude either way.

As far as the blood evidence - once again - it's not like TV or the movies. If you stab someone and don't take the knife out and the person is wearing clothing - there could easily be no blood evidence on the suspect. It isn't like the movies where it's spurting out in all directions. In fact, there could be very little blood at all.

As for the movie ticket - how would they know who was there - they didn't use credit cards. Didn't they ask people there if they saw him and they didn't.

Why return to the scene? Well if he didn't he would surely look as guilty as could be. If he does go back he could hope nobody could identify him and play it off as if he was surprised. If he goes on the run just after his father died - that would be a sign of his guilt - wouldn't it?

You can scream now if you want.

I think the reason they say he found the duplicate knife at a pawn shop in the kid's neighborhood is to tell the audience that the one he bought was actually the one that the kid lost; which whoever found had sold to the pawn shop.

But there is definitely just as much evidence that points to the kid being guilty as there is innocent, so he would have to be found innocent either way.

To the OP. This post pretty much sums up that the verdict was right to be not guilty.

The fact so many here are arguing their point and have different interpretations and views proves that the evidence is not 100% certain. The jury had reasonable doubt. This basically means that if any of the evidence calls into question whether the accused is guilty, then they cannot say with certainty that he was.

Would you sentence someone to death, if you were not CERTAIN of all the evidence? The jurors were not saying he was definitely innocent, just that there was not enough evidence to be certain that he was guilty.

"If the evidence don't fit, you must acquit"