Hello

Jill here. So I'm really liking this movie so far. I personally think it's frightening, how 11 of the men were--at the beginning--certain that the young man was guilty; he nearly died as a result. Only one of jurors disagreed out of reasonable doubt and ultimately led us to view this case as notably shaky. Without his dissent, the case wouldn't have been questioned, and the men would have left with the "knowledge" that they put a guilty man to death. This seems to lead to the discussion we had the very first day; how do we arrive at true knowledge? The jurors undoubtedly thought they knew of his guilt (two of whom still do), and it seems they may be wrong. I'm not even sure that witnessing an event taking place can lead to sure knowledge; the witnesses to the murder, after all, seem possibly to have been wrong in what they saw. Am I making sense? It was an interesting thought, in any case.