Twelve Angry Men 3rd assignment

[Mitzi100]

Hi Everyone,
First, remember to prepare your version of the re-enactment of the crime for Sunday's lesson. If you are not yet in a team, because you missed Tuesday's lesson , join one of the teams of 3 students. Each person in the team must speak during the (short!) presentation.
Second, please continue reading the play until the line on page 50. Write notes that will help you predict the next vote. Stop at the line and predict how the voting will go on your prediction worksheet. Then read until the end of page 51 and stop reading!
Next, think about how you think the conflict among the jurors will be resolved. How will they get to a unanimous vote? Write your ideas to the forum in detail (3 or 4 good sentences, at least. ) It is very important that you write your idea BEFORE you read what anyone else has written!
After you write your idea, find someone on the forum who disagrees with you, and try to convince him/her that he/she is wrong and you are right.
As usual, this assignment is due by 22:00 on Saturday night.
Mitzi
P.S. Don't forget to bring your scripts to class on Sunday and be ready for some drama! We'll be in the English room, and costumes and props are available.

[JennyI]

I think, the only way the conflict will be able to resolve is , if the 8th juror persuade his pears that there is a reasonable doubt. He needs to show that there could be another killer. He needs to persuade the jurors that the evidence they have are not enough to give the death sentence to the kid. The 8th juror should also try to convince the juror number three and ten that they cant vote "guilty" just because they do not like black people.

[Anton ch]

In my opinion, there is just one way how the conflict can be solved. The 8th juror will introduce other testimonies which don’t prove the boy's guilt. I mean that there might be a reasonable doubt and the 8th juror will convince the other jurors. And the boy might be proclaimed not guilty. The last juror to be convinced is the 3rd one. It isn’t just because he hates black people but also because of his own conflict with his son.

[liorap]

I think that the conflict among the jurors will be resolved when the members of jury that voted "not guilty" will found very important evidence to the unterstanding of the case. The evidence can be a clip that shows how another person killed the boy's father.Because of the evidence, the rest of the jurors will start thinking differently and will change their opnion. Know the verdict will be that the boy is innocent.

[ilan.p.]

I really believe that the only way to solve this conflict is to show other proves that there may be another killer. Only the 8th juror can solve it out, because in my opinion he is the only one who really wants to find out whether the boy is guilty or not. There are not enough proves that the boy was,actually,the killer, and the 8th juror tries to do everything that will convince the others.Jurors 10 and 3 are the most problematic: they have a very big problem with black people,so the 8 th juror must work very hard in order to change their minds.

[Anton I]

It is tough getting to an unanimous vote, because some of the jurors are pretty convinced that the boy is a killer and that justice must be done. I think that to get to an agreement between the jurors there must be found a different story. Maybe in the end the boy is guilty for killing his father (even though some facts are false or twisted) and then will be an unanimous vote for "guilty" or there is someone else who incriminated the boy for murdering (and not introduced yet) and that will surely convince even the hard ones (3,4,7,10) that there is someone else they can put on the electric chair and vote that the boy is "not guilty".

I think that the conflict among the jurors will be resolved when the members of jury that voted "not guilty" will found very important evidence to the unterstanding of the case. The evidence can be a clip that shows how another person killed the boy's father.Because of the evidence, the rest of the jurors will start thinking differently and will change their opnion. Know the verdict will be that the boy is innocent.

I disagree. I don't think that they will find a clip(or anything alike) that shows the murder scene because it's a bit bizzare and a really easy way to convince the jurors. By the way, it's up to the police to find evidences, not the jurors.

[Slava]

I don't think that they will manage to convinced all the jurors about the kids innocence. I think they might not reach a verdict or that the last jurors will just give up and say the boy isn't guilty just so they will just go home. Especially the 3rd juror, he is just such a bullhead.

I disagree with liora. Untill now the jurors didn't find new evidence, but just talked about the existing information that was given to them so that they would manage to reveal the truth. But.. a tape? how is it possible for the jurors to suddenly find a tape with the true killer? why would there be a camera over there? and how the police didn't even find it before? and even if they found a tape.. why would they start thinking differently? It will just be a proof and they will know the truth. Without the need to even consider the guilt of the boy.

[Julia Klepfish]

I think that the 8th juror will bring another evidence. He will make an appeal on the women's testimony. He might bring evidence that the women couldn't see well throw the windows of the el train. The el train went fast so it is probably hard to see what went in the apartment. The women maybe sow the boy and his father hit hard each other and thought that the boy killed his father.

* I disagree with Michael, I don't think that the old man used drugs. He is probably lied or sow somebody else running down the stairs. I also don't think that the 8th juror related to the mafia. It is an entry test with very small probability for success. It hard to convince everybody that the boy is innocent especially if you claim that the boy actually killed his father.

[Dima]

I think the conflict among the jurors will be resolved if the 8th juror will bring another evidence that will make the 3rd and the 10th juror change their mind. The evidence can be that the woman didn’t saw well what happens in the apartment because of the el train. Also the jurors who vote for “guilty” can change their mind because of the late hour and Lack of evidence to prove that the boy is guilty.

[jenia buzilo]

I think the conflict among the jurors will be resolved if the 8th juror will bring another evidence. For example, I think if he will bring evidence that the train was very fast and the woman couldn't see exactly what happend.

I'm agree with dima and yulia.

[emanuel.Y]

Twelve Angry Men 3rd assignment

I think the conflict among the jurors will be resolved just if they will have more time to receive more proves if the boy is guilty or not.Now they are all nervous and fighting one with other so maybe each of them need to be alone for an hour and think about what happend and get an answer without any presure or nervous.Ithink just in this way they will get to a unanimous vote and resolve thier conflict.
I don't agree with Dima because I think the 8th juror can't bring another evidence all the jurors have to kisten more evidence and deciede all together if the boy is guilty or not because maybe the 8th juror is wrong and the other jurors are wright.

[Ilia Altmark]

I think that the most of the jurors are going to vote for “Not guilty” and that there’s going to be a problem with the third juror but somehow it would be resolved. I’m sure there’s going to be a very serious and a very dramatic conversation about the verdict. In the end of the play those who are voted for “Guilty” would be in the minority and when they will understand the verdict is not going to change they will agree with the majority and vote for “Not guilty”.

I don’t agree with liora that there is such evidence that will prove there is another killer or something. There’s definitely not going to be any evidence of that kind.

[Michael]

I think the conflict will end with one last brilliant twist of facts by the eight juror. He will affect the other jurors votes when he will prove that the old man, who heard the "boys" voice, was under the effect of medical drugs which make the consumer hallucinate, and the only juror who won't accept the "not guilty" verdict would be the juror who fought with the eight juror. Furthermore, the third juror will burst in emotions after accepting that the boy is not guilty. The jurors would be happy about their verdict, although in the end we will discover that the boy was truly guilty, which will reveal the eight juror as a mafia agent, who made the boy kill his own father in order to be accepted in the eight's juror mafia organization.

I think that the conflict among the jurors will be resolved when the members of jury that voted "not guilty" will found very important evidence to the unterstanding of the case. The evidence can be a clip that shows how another person killed the boy's father.Because of the evidence, the rest of the jurors will start thinking differently and will change their opnion. Know the verdict will be that the boy is innocent.

Liora, I think you misunderstood the duty of the jurors. The jurors have to decide if the accused is guilty or innocent while analyzing the facts that were shown in the court, therefore there won't be new evidences, so Liora you don't have a choice but to agree with my prediction.

[Jonathan]

I got an impression that the guys from the play are quite angry at this point of the story. It seems that they are confused and tired from their own doubts. In my oppinion, the only way to reach a kind of compromise between them is tolerance. They are very stubborn, and non of them can't listen to an opposite oppinion. I was surprised that the eight juror's idea to re-enact the scene was accepted in such an agressive way. I really hope that he will manage to disproof the theory about the murder, and to proof that the boy is not guilty.
Good luck to him.

[ilan.p.]

I really believe that the only way to solve this conflict is to show other evidences and proofs, that show that maybe the boy is not the killer. Only the 8th juror can solve it, because he is the only who really wants to find out whether the boy is guilty or not. The 8th juror does everything in order to convince the others that the boy is not guilty. The 10th and the 3rd juror are very problematic.They have a very big problem with black people, which means that the 8th juror must work very hard in order to change their minds.

It's not so easy to get to unanimous vote because more then a half of the jurors are sure that the boy is ,actually, the killer.

I really disagree with Liora's thoughts. How it is possible suddenly to get a tape? I mean there are sitting in a room , and you expect someone will bring them a tape which proves that the boy is not guilty?. Therefore, there won't be new evidences. This is the situation and the jurors have to deal with it.

[Anton ch]

Dear liora,
If there was such clip we wouldn't have this play .
Don't you think that other things might be
For example, that the testimony of the woman would fall under doubt.

[Eran]

I think it's pretty clear that the jurors who voted "not guilty", and especially juror number 8 will persuade the jurors who voted "guilty" one by one until they will even convince the most radical jurors (numbers 3 and 10). I think that juror number 8 will continue to show that the trial was wrong and that the attorney who supposed to defend the boy, missed many important points. One of those points for example is that apparently the boy couldn't remember the name of the movie he said he went to, and that destroyed his alibi, but juror number 8 proved that it can't be proven that the boy lied, and it's quite possible that the boy just couldn't remember the name of the movies he went to that night because the emotional stress he had by being interrogated after his father's murdere.

I disagree with Ilan. I don't think that the jurors who voted "not guilty" have to bring new proofs and evidences. Yes, it will be more dramatic if all of a sudden number 8 will bring an evidence that change everybody's mind, but I think that in this point of the play (page 59) the unanimous vote could also be achieved with persuading the jurors ,who voted guilty, with the facts that number 8 already have proven.

[liorap]

It's my opinion and all of you will see that the boy is not guiltyyyyyyyyyy!
And I saw that the evidence can be....that's just an idea.

I think that the conflict among the jurors will be resolve* when the members of jury that voted "not guilty" will found very important evidence to the unterstanding of the case. The evidence can be a clip that shows how another person killed the boy's father.Because of the evidence, the rest of the jurors will start thinking differently and will change their *opinion. Know the verdict will be that the boy is innocent.
liorap

[Slava]

Liora, we weren't disagreeing with the "not guilty" part.. If you read what everyone wrote, you would see that that they all think the boy will be found not guilty. The part that is just wrong is the new evidence part.

[JennyI]

I agree with leoraP that the jurors who voted "not guilty" should find hard evidence to show the rest of the jurors that the boy is not guilty, but I do not think that they can produce a clip that shows someone else killing the father, because if such a clip existed it would have come up in the judgment and there would be no reason for the jury.

[Yana S]

I think that the conflict among the jurors will be resolved when the 8th juror will prove evreyone that the boy is not guilty. I think that only he is wise and clever enough to solve this case and to show to all the jurors, especially to the 3rd one , that the boy isn't guilty and that the facts that were told by the old man and the woman are false, or uncorrect.

I disagree with Ilan. becuse i don't think that the jurors that voted "not guilty" nedd to bring new evidences, i think they only will change the point of view of the other jurors on the facts that were already shown.

[Adi]

I think that the conflict will be resolved when all the jurors will vote one voice that the boy is not guilty. And this will happened when the 3ed juror, who's the strongest between the objectors to the "not guilty" idea, would be convents differently (that the boy is "not guilty") and he will effect others objectors.

I agree with everybody about the disagreement with Ilan.

[Sponsored content]