12 Angry Men Untold Story

I decided to read a famous play called "12 Angry Men". To me in this play there is an untold story. Sadly, in this play the twelve men do not have names they go by numbers. These men are jurors for a murder trial. In this trial a nineteen year old boy supposedly killed his father in their apartment building by stabbing him with a switch knife. Eleven out of the twelve men believe the boy is very much guilty. However, juror number eight believes otherwise. On page 18 juror eight says "Nobody has to prove otherwise; innocent until proven guilty". Juror number eight wants justice to be done and always seeks the truth. He has a peculiar thought and belief that the adolescent boy did not kill his father but there is a chance he very well did. The untold story in this play deals with the boy who is held in trial. His story is being told by a bunch of men sitting around a table in a jury room. Yet the boy himself isn't apart of it. It is still his story because that's all the jurors talk about and discuss. To be honest this play always leaves me on edge thinking. The jurors believe he is guilty because he had a bad past, his mother dying, not doing well in school, abuse from father, and other stabbing incidents. Because of his past these men are assuming and judging that he automatically killed his father. Of course we don't know for sure if he did it or not, but to me I don't think the boy had a chance to even speak his side of the story, or when he did it just went in one ear and out the other for the jurors. In the story that was told to the jurors, apparently the boy and his father got into an argument and the boy said "I'm going to kill you" and soon after the father struck his son, the son stabbed his father right in the chest with a switch knife. This is the only story they heard and since it was the first and only thing they heard it's what they believe. Juror eight believes otherwise. He believes that there is another story to be told. He believes it could have gone a different way and no one can see it. He is trying to give the boy a chance but the evidence of everything is pointing to the son that he is guilty. Otherwise if it would not have been told, all the jurors wouldn't have come to the conclusion that he is guilty and they all wouldn't be so narrow-minded. They would actually have a calm, gentlemen like talk instead of having a short tempered angry conversation. They would see the whole picture instead. For those who read this play would you agree that the boy held in trial has an untold story? Also, do you think the boy is downright guilty of this crime or are you more like juror number eight...would you think deeper into the situation and give the boy a chance? For me I believe the boy is guilty, but again he should be heard.