According to the boy himself he had motivation as well as the means to kill his father. Perhaps most damning of all, the young man has no alibi. He says he was 'at the movies.' Saying he was at the movies seems like a convenient excuse, given that it is a dark place where no one is likely to have seen him. Furthermore, the defendant claims he cannot remember the films he saw. I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, if your life hung in the balance, could you not remember the names, or at least a few images and actors, of the movies you saw while your father was murdered? The young man's refusal to provide any evidence underlines his guilt. If he named a film, there would be no eyewitnesses at the cinema, and he knows he might give a wrong name and time for the film. Any inaccuracy would automatically catch him in a lie.

Further straining credibility is the statement by the young man that the knife he purchased fell through a hole in his pocket. How likely is it that the boy's knife fell through a hole in his pocket and then was discovered by the murderer in the same neighborhood -- and then the murderer carefully wiped the handle of the blade clean?

There has been a great deal of debate about the credibility of the witnesses. Some say that an old man could not have gotten to the door...

But given the extremity of the circumstances, would we not all move more quickly? The man had just heard someone being murdered in his presence! And I ask again: what reason does he have to lie? Simply because an individual is old and infirm does not mean that he should be mistrusted: to ignore him would be another injustice, against the wisdom and the opinion of someone who has lived a long life.
Once again I state the defendant is poor and non-white has no bearing on this case: other than the fact that it is essential that justice is done for the sake of the victim. Merely because the victim lives in a poor neighborhood, and is neither white nor educated does not mean that we can take our responsibilities lightly.

We must also consider the defendant's character. He has been to reform school; he stole a car when he was fifteen. His willingness to defy the law is established. This seems to be a sad life pattern, cumulating in the death of the boy's father. The young man, when tried as a juvenile, was given a second chance. That second chance, given to him by the judicial system of our land, has resulted in the death of his father. It is up to all of us to make sure that the young man does not have a third chance to harm another individual.