When Li Yi and others read the script, they must sort out the plot, because although the actors can be free to express themselves, they cannot escape control.

Therefore, the general process must be followed according to Li Yi's requirements, that is, according to the outline of the script.

So in the next scene, some people hesitated, some were angry, and there was a fierce argument, and then naturally began to touch on other key evidence... The old man living downstairs heard the boy yelling "I want to kill him."

"I'll kill you." A second later, he heard the sound of someone falling. The old man ran to the door and saw the boy rushing out of the door. When the woman across the street looked out of the window, she saw the boy holding a knife to kill. A car passed by at that time.

She witnessed the incident through the car window. Combining the testimonies of the two people, doubts emerged. When the tram passed by the window, it made a rumbling noise. Can the old man hear the sound upstairs? He can

Did you hear the boy's voice? Reasonable doubt. This reasonable doubt made everyone change their hearts! So two more people changed their stance. At this time, the voting ratio changed again to 8:4.

The next scene is still about reasonable doubt about the evidence. A lame old man got out of bed, "ran" through the bedroom and corridor to the door, and completed it in 15 seconds. Can he do it? Juror No. 8

The scene was arranged according to the schematic diagram, and the process was demonstrated by imitating the old man's steps for 41 seconds! The old man's testimony was not credible. Voted again: 6:6.

Then the next scene, the sound of rain broke the silence. It rained heavily outside the window, and the old fan started to spin. The coolness failed to bridge the differences. Is the case going to become an unresolved case? Reasonable doubts cannot be eliminated, the debate continues, and new doubts are raised.

The boy came out. The boy was much shorter than his father, and the wound was downward. Is this possible? The reckless and irritable No. 3 stubbornly insisted on guilt. He held the dagger behind his back to demonstrate. Cha Qia No. 5 had been in a club and witnessed

Knife fight. In his experience, folding knives are always pointed upward; no one holds the folding knife backwards to stab each other. It is too stupid to do so. Reasonable doubt stems from the rule of thumb. The 12 jurors come from different backgrounds and industries.

Different, in terms of daily experience and common sense of life, they are real experts.

This is also the wonderful thing about the professions given to these jurors by the setting. Originally, their professions had no direct connection with the temporary special profession of jurors, but here, they are connected.

In fact, to a certain extent, it is also a manifestation of a sense of participation.

As we all know, in the beginning, everyone didn’t pay much attention to this case in a fundamental sense.

Because the defendant did not deserve sympathy, and it was also a crime of patricide, everyone felt that since the evidence was sufficient and conclusive, they might as well just sentence him and be done with it.

And it's also because they actually don't have that deep sense of involvement in the role of jurors.

Because their profession seems to be of little use in this case.

But as the discussion progressed, each of their professions began to have an effect when analyzing the case.

For example, Juror No. 5, who has been in the club, knows how to use a folding knife.
Chapter completed!