I disagree with that argument for many reasons. > Let's start with the fact that there was no other known suspect. That's not for a jury to decide. There was

I disagree with that argument for many reasons. > Let's start with the fact that there was no other known suspect. That's not for a jury to decide. There was no other suspect presented. > Yet there was no sign of a forced break-in and no indication of robbery or theft. Is that actually mentioned in the movie? I'm rereading the screenplay [0], and the only mention of any motive is the fight between the dad and the kid, which seems to be undisputed. The prosecution isn't going to tell us about all the other pieces of evidence that don't fit the case they're trying to present. The defense could have done so, but let's be honest, it was probably some overworked public defender because a 16-year-old is probably not the sort who can afford a first-rate criminal defense lawyer. The claim that you can take these pieces of circumstantial evidence and do some math on them to arrive at some probability above 90% is... not really how arguments are constructed. Juror #8 had serious concerns with each of the core pieces of testimony, which could have been enough to consider each of the witnesses untrustworthy. If the jury is not willing to accept any of the evidence, then there's simply no case. > This "demonstration" hardly diminishes the strong inference of guilt raised by the fact that the defendant could remember nothing at all about the movie he claimed to have just seen. And nobody saw him at the theater. His alibi, therefore, is highly suspect. Sure, his alibi (along with the rest of the cited testimony from the defendant) is not very believable. But the absence of an alibi does not automatically prove guilt. [0] e.g. https://thescriptlab.com/wp-content/uploads/scripts/12AngryMen.pdf https://thescriptlab.com/wp-content/uploads/scripts/12AngryM...