There's obviously some tension since Whedon is walking away from the MCU despite a reported 9 figures that were thrown at him and an obvious love for the product itself.

Maybe, so, but as any lawyer will tell you, any case based entirely on circumstantial evidence is rarely, if ever, considered truly "strong." That's why circumstantial evidence is typically used as a supplement to other, harder forms of evidence.

Maybe, so, but as any lawyer will tell you, any case based entirely on circumstantial evidence is rarely, if ever, considered truly "strong." That's why circumstantial evidence is typically used as a supplement to other, harder forms of evidence.

The film addresses this very issue quite explicitly. One of the many points the film makes about the justice system, is that often poor defendants relying on a public defender get a less than stellar defense. Indeed, one of Juror #8's primary motivators for being the initial contrarian is that it didn't sit right…

The film addresses this very issue quite explicitly. One of the many points the film makes about the justice system, is that often poor defendants relying on a public defender get a less than stellar defense. Indeed, one of Juror #8's primary motivators for being the initial contrarian is that it didn't sit right…

There's no such concept as "adequate frequency of guilt" in the US justice system, hence the old saying "better 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail". That's the theoretical base construct of the justice system, and the entire point the film was trying to make.

There's no such concept as "adequate frequency of guilt" in the US justice system, hence the old saying "better 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail". That's the theoretical base construct of the justice system, and the entire point the film was trying to make.

I reject the notion that evidence has some sort of Cumulative effect as a whole. A piece of evidence is either faulty or it's not, it doesn't become less faulty just because there are more of them.

I reject the notion that evidence has some sort of Cumulative effect as a whole. A piece of evidence is either faulty or it's not, it doesn't become less faulty just because there are more of them.

You totally misunderstand the underlying thesis of the film. The entire point is, that in it's most ideologically pure form, the US justice system is supposed to be set up that the evidence required for conviction, should be so unimpeachable that even slight (reasonable) doubt of guilt means a jury cannot vote to…

You totally misunderstand the underlying thesis of the film. The entire point is, that in it's most ideologically pure form, the US justice system is supposed to be set up that the evidence required for conviction, should be so unimpeachable that even slight (reasonable) doubt of guilt means a jury cannot vote to…