He claimed “at ten minutes after twelve on the night of the killing he heard loud noises… it sounded like a fight. Then he heard the kid shout ‘I’m gonna kill you!’ A second later he heard a body fall…” (Rose 15) He then stated it took “fifteen seconds,” (Rose 43) to “[run] to the door of his apartment…and [see] the kid running down the stairs,” (Rose 15). Now, let’s take into account who this eyewitness testimony is coming from. This man was clearly confused and even suffered from a stroke some time ago (Rose 43). Could this mean that his cognitive or even hearing ability could be damaged? Could he have maybe altered what he truly …show more content…
We all saw the prosecution prove it. However, the other evidence can be disproved. Firstly, the prosecution is relying greatly on the defendant clearly saying “ ‘I’m gonna kill you!’ at the top of his lungs,” (Rose ). However, how many times have you said “I’m gonna kill you!”? We say it all the time, “ I could kill you for that darling… Come on Rocky, kill him,” (Rose ) It’s become a part of our vocabulary, “We say it every day. It doesn’t mean we’re going to kill someone,” (Rose). The prosecution could also argue how the witness saw the defendant flee the crime scene, automatically framing him as not only a suspect, but the perpetrator. Earlier we stated that the man suffered from a stroke, and due to this stoke he has an injury in his leg. The man drags the leg when he walks. In order to see the defendant flee, he would have to “get up out of bed, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty- three feet and open the front door- all in fifteen seconds…” (Rose ). Now this man, a man who “had to be [helped] into the witness stand,” (Rose ) could not have made it to the door in time to see the defendant run away. In fact, a simulation states that it would have taken 42 seconds. (Rose ). What the defense suggests is that “the old man heard the fight between the boy and his father a few hours