Reference no: EM133679314

How was the evidence against the accused listed below refuted by sound critical thinking?

The old man downstairs claims (i) he heard the accused yell, "I'm gonna kill you!" followed by the sound of a body hitting the floor, and (ii) he saw the accused running down the stairs fifteen seconds after the murder.
The woman across the el-tracks claims she saw the accused stab his father through the windows of a passing el-train.
The knife was identified as the defendant's by several witnesses and was allegedly one-of-a-kind.
The accused had a weak alibi. He couldn't remember the names of the movies or who played in them. Also, he claims, implausibly, that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket on his way to the movies.
The accused had a motive: He had regularly been beaten up by his father, and he had been "hit" by his father earlier that evening.
What logical fallacies were committed by individual jurors? (Hint: There are a lot of them. Pay attention to jurors #3, 7, 8 & 10)
Some types to look for could be Inconsistency, Red Herring, Bandwagon, Attacking the Person, Weak Analogy, Inconsistency, Hasty Generalization, False Alternatives & Appeal to Pity. Be specific in your responses and support with statements made by the jurors in the movie. Use examples from the movie to support the fallacy type.
In your opinion, was the final verdict correct or incorrect. Defend you answer.
Does the film lower your confidence in the jury system? Why or why not?
How does the film underscore the practical value of critical thinking skills? Be detailed in your response.