I think he's guilty. One, he bought a knife. Why buy one when you aren't gonna use it? Secondly, emotional distress, huh? Well can that cause you to forget how to use a flick knife that you so handedly know how the same way it made you forget the names of the movies he watched? Thirdly, the murder was premeditated, no? Meaning, he had that knife open already before he went to his dad and plunged it in. A quick stab (normal flick knife holding position) would be possible if it was done out of desperation but he had planned it, meaning he opened it and changed holding position to create the angle that he did. We can all agree the old lady SAW someone but who? That is another question BUT we have to remember, if it were anyone else, what motive? I'd set him to the chair.

Now what say you?

awww... try not to be harsh on the boy eh... And I do believe he is NOT guilty. Watched the movie few months back but couldn't recall the story flow correctly.

fyi, I don't think many people watch this film as it was way back 1957 as stated, you can try youtubing the movie, there're some short clips about it. The movie itself was nicely done, just try to think that 12 men only with their words can bring you back to the criminal scene.

Didn't you watched the movie properly? He's not guilty lah IMO.

I am not convinced. Just because Henry Fonda preached so? I raised my points, didn't I?

I seen both version. The boy is not guilty. What is the motive for him to kill? They cant prove. The story of the movie is that he is innocent.

Anyway, about the movie, I think both version is equally good. I almost laugh when seeing the new version with that CSI dude in the role as the person who only interested to go to see baseball.

Motive being he has had reached breaking point with his dad. What motive "OTHER" people had? They couldn't catch another person. Robbed? Anything lost?