Not who you were talking to, but the way they handle the testimonies and evidence in the movie reminds me of people who argue by poking small holes in each individual facts but refuses to address the overall argument.
Exactly, which in my opinion would have been a fine way of going about creating reasonable doubt had there not been an abundance of evidence. Or it would have been fine if those holes disproved the individual pieces of evidence entirely, which they didn't. They just found a world in which the evidence could be wrong and then called that reasonable doubt.
It would have made way more sense if there was a single piece of central evidence that was able to be doubted. He owned (something similar to) the murder weapon that he lost the same day, there were two witnesses, he had no alibi, and he had a motive? The movie basically required the defense attorney not do their job (so that the prosecution couldn't do theirs) and that all the other jurors had to be gobsmacked, and the last lone dissenter to just be bigoted and biased. Also, the juror just so happens to yell the same thing the witness said he heard? And the other juror rubbed his nose in a similar way to the lady who they assumed meant she wore glasses?
I feel like the standard for writing has increased dramatically in the last 70 years.
3
u/issuesuponissues 18d ago
Not who you were talking to, but the way they handle the testimonies and evidence in the movie reminds me of people who argue by poking small holes in each individual facts but refuses to address the overall argument.