Still unrefuted to this day

Gee, I wonder who is behind that post.

Attached: Juror 3.jpg (570x340, 128K)

Attached: 1539877522_NPC_YeaOK.jpg (319x350, 15K)

All the evidence.
The movie is about how easy it is to sew doubt in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I could create a "reasonable doubt" about almost anything. This is how things like holocaust denial and so forth thrive. You don't need to PROVE it didn't happen, you just need to sew doubt in a reasonable way. Imagine if that was the jury at Nuremburg.
Substitute any other case with overwhelming evidence and you'll see the tragedy. He didn't even convince them, he wore them down. He sewed doubt. Like the example of how much time it would take to cross a room. There are a thousand things wrong that demonstration. But it was enough to sew doubt. One could easily do so the opposite way. For instance crossing the room one could argue that the time was misreported, and that the number is arbitrary at best. What counts is he got up and saw the kid running down the stairs.
One could sew doubt that the sky was blue. The movie is a tragedy about a system of justice that is NOT blind, but in fact sentimental.

Refute what? His entirely emotional impulsive non rational opinion?
If the justice system was like this dude every single #MeToo roastie would automatically win every case

Yes user, that's the entire point of the movie

>All the evidence.
Testimonies don't count as hard evidence
>The movie is about how easy it is to sew doubt in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Name 1 (one) evidence

Are you being retarded on purpose? Beyond reasonable doubt is the whole fucking point of criminal trials.

It quite literally doesn't matter is the kid actually guilty or not.
The movie just shows that we need the "innocent until proven guilty" system if we want to keep the actual innocent people out of prison as much as possible, with the cost of letting a small number of guilty people free.

Did he do it or not doesn't matter, that's just a plot device for the narrative.

We'd have to watch the movie together and place ourselves in the room. It's been a while since I saw it.

I named one in the paragraph, the demonstration about how long to get from the bed to the front door to see the kid running down the stairs.

Lee J. Cobb was amazing, arguably the best actor in the film, although most of the credit often goes to Fonda
his role hits me particularly hard, because I have father issues and can totally see my dad acting passionately in such a decision without noticing

You're merely stating what's wrong with Fonda's reasoning, not what counts as evidence.
Look up the definition of evidence

I admit the thing with the knife is a little too incredible to me not enough for reasonable doubt. It's not impossible but highly unlikely.

>long rambling text
>boils down to “he gave them a reasonable doubt”
psst...buddy...that’s the way the system is designed...”beyond a reasonable doubt”

Given the lack of hard evidence with the technology of the time (no video recordings or really anything) testimony is the next best thing. And several people gave testimony that was pretty damning. What Fonda does is simply show that eye witness testimony isn't credible, which no duh. My point is you could do that for ALL eye witness testimony in the way he did. All of his points are that the witnesses either didn't or couldn't tell the truth, which is preposterous given that testimony was all they had.
Most of all, he didn't prove the kid was innocent, just that he wasn't guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt". All I'm saying is that the movie to me simply highlights the glaring flaws in the justice system, whereby a single doubt about one's guilt is enough to pronounce one innocent. That's not justice, that's sentimentality.

Never mind that all the evidence is considered in a vacuum.

>the glaring flaws in the justice system
Those are not glaring flaws, that's how it can only work if we want to keep innocent people out of jail, even if the cost is letting a small number of guilty go.

And even with this system we get some innocent people in jail, if it was like you want it to be every #MeToo roastie would automatically send every male to jail, just get a few twitter "testimonies" and boom you're in jail