The first piece of evidence that shows reasonable doubt is the uniqueness of the knife. In the play, the storekeeper identified the knife and said it was the only one of its kind he had in stock. Also, one juror stated, “it’s a very strange knife. I’ve never seen one like it before in my life. Neither had the storekeeper who sold it to him.” (Pg. 23-24). Later, juror 8 reaches into his pocket and takes out a knife and states, “Look at it! It’s the same knife!”…”I hot it in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy’s house. It costs two dollars.” (Pg. 24) After discussing the uniqueness of the knife, the jurors decided there was reasonable doubt when the old man’s testimony came into the question. In this play, the second piece of evidence that shows reasonable doubt is the old man’s testimony. An old man lived right underneath the room where the murder took place. He heard loud noises at 12:10 from upstairs. It sounded like a fight to him and he heard the boy say, “I’m gonna kill you.” He heard a body fall a second later, and he saw the boy run out of the apartment. The old man called the police and they found a knife in the father’s chest. The old man states that he took 15 seconds to get out of bed and see the boy run down the stairs. However, juror 8 proves that the old man’s timing was off because it is impossible for an old man, who carries two canes, to walk and see the boy run out of the building in 15 seconds. Also, the jurors prove that the old man would have never seen the boy run down the stairs and out of the apartment because there was very little light. The jurors were convinced that the old woman’s witness account would prove more reasonable doubt. Examining the woman’s eyewitness account, the jurors began to find discrepancies in the evidence. She lived down the street from the boy and knew him all of his life. On the night of the murder, she was lying in her bed and could see directly into he room where the boy lived. The woman went to bed at 11:00 that night, but she tossed and turned for about an hour. When she finally turned toward the window at about 12:10, she saw the boy stab his father. However, the woman wore strong, thick bifocals and she wouldn’t have put them on in bed to just casually look out the window. In addition, the woman “saw the murder” through the window of and el train passing by the window and the lights went out a second after the el train came by. Most of the jurors predicted that when the woman saw the murder, it was truly only a blur that she thought was the boy, but it could have been anyone. With the evidence gathered at this point, the jurors decide that the boy is telling the truth, due to reasonable doubt. J