Question: Did they ever look at the hole in his pocket that the knife supposedly slipped out of?
LorgSkyegon
5th Jan 2019
12 Angry Men (1957)
Answer: We have to assume that there was a hole in his pocket; we don't see it, but if the jurors are talking about it as a given fact, then it is likely that they checked it during the trial. However, it does not prove anything. It is easy to rip a hole in a pocket to produce an alibi. Also, it does not lower the extreme unlikeliness that someone else with another but similar looking knife stepped into the boy's apartment at around the same time he lost it. "One in a million," one juror said, and it was not really disputed. No. 8 gave his typical but meaningless "it is possible." Still, they went for an acquittal with these high odds against the boy.
25th Aug 2008
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Corrected entry: At the beginning of the film, when the boat crew is killed, why isn't the boat itself destroyed? Yes, the top is a bit damaged but the main body of the boat is fine. A creature that could kill the whole crew in that short space of time would surely damage the rest of the boat as well. Even a modern day crocodile can easily smash a hole in the side of a small boat just using its tail.
Correction: The Pterosaurs only attack the humans for invading their territory (and in the process, they damage the flimsy roof of the boat that was sheltering a human). They were not out to destroy a boat.
Is it ever explicitly stated anywhere what dinosaur attacks the boat?
In the original script it said that there were to also be scenes where Grant sees foot prints and other evidence. The opening shot was done before the final script was done. They used that scene for the opening and did not re-shoot it.
Not to mention that a crocodile is extremely strong and tough, while any flying animal would be considerably less so.
Correction: It was said that they wanted to have it be the pterosaurs who attacked the boat but cut the scene as it conflicted with the script since they were still locked in the cage at the time.
Answer: If you're referring to the jurors, no. We see the entirety of their deliberations. If you're referring to the prosecution or defense, that is unknown. Given, however, that none of the jurors brought up the question, it's likely there was at least a check of his clothes to verify he had a hole in his pocket.
Given how easy it would be to simply tear a hole as an excuse, even if it was there, it wouldn't be much in the way of corroboration.
LorgSkyegon