Reflections on Watching "Twelve Angry Men"

First, I suggest everyone to recognize each person clearly, which is very important, and I have organized it.

Twelve Angry Men Image

Basic Information of Each Person#

Number	Basic Information
1	Group leader, high school soccer coach. Just wants to go through the process.
2	Acts on feelings (whether in court or during the second knife).
3	Owner of a calling company, very disdainful of rebellious children, strong-willed (feels embarrassed when the child loses and runs away).
4	Stockbroker. Discriminates against the poor, associates the poor with crime, clear logic.
5	Lives in a slum, has witnessed gang fights.
6	Painter. Acts on first impressions, but is rational, looks for motives, respects the elderly. Has stayed by the electric track.
7	Salesman. Cares about sports games, concerned about criminal history.
8	Davis, architect. Has lived by the electric track.
9	McCardle, elderly man. Sympathetic to the lower class, observant, understands people's psychology.
10	Runs a repair shop. Discriminates against the lower class, associates slums with crime, lying, and violence. Interrupts the speaking order.
11	Watchmaker. Values rules, grammar, politeness, jury duty, and speaking order.
12	Advertising executive. Plays games in the deliberation room, discriminates against watchmakers outside Europe.

Interesting Facts#

There were originally 2 chairs not next to the table; one was moved by number 2 himself, and the other was moved by number 6 for the elderly man, which shows number 6's respect for the elderly.
Number 7 initially said that even if they discussed for 100 years, he wouldn't be convinced, but before they had even discussed for an hour, he hurriedly voted randomly.
Number 3 was originally stating facts, listing them one by one. In the end, he ignored each fact, especially when he was angry, angrily cursing the reasoning results, which were completely opposite to his initial statements.
Many people exhibited rude behavior; number 3 sat on the table; number 7 stood on a chair, sat on the table; number 8 stood on a chair; number 12 had his feet on the table, standing on a chair.
Number 11's emphasis on order was evident when everyone first entered the room, as he automatically sat in the 11th position as a juror.
Number 11, as a watchmaker, values time. When everyone debated whether the child and father argued at 7 or 8 o'clock, or whether the elderly man took 15 or 20 seconds to open the door, he provided the correct timing.
In the film, number 8 simulated the entire process of the elderly man opening the door, claiming it took 41 seconds, while the actual film playback time was only 32 seconds.
I even carefully observed the order in which each person entered the room, the order of taking off their coats, the order of others leaving when number 10 went crazy, and the final exit order, finding nothing particularly interesting.
During the first vote, the elderly man number 9 was very hesitant.
There was a continuity error in the film; during the second vote, counting number 7 on the right side, there were 5 slips of paper, listed from top to bottom as 12, 11, 10, 7, 9. These slips were then placed under the 6 slips on the left side, but the slip read "Not guilty" was the 10th one, which should have been number 7's. I looked closely, and number 9 had a ring on his left hand, while number 7 had a watch on his left hand, so there was no mistake.
After the 5th vote, both sides ended in a tie, and dramatic rain was arranged. It borrowed from number 1's comeback in the game and number 7's comment about the situation improving when he turned on the fan, hinting at the final outcome.

Questions#

Why did number 7, who was clearly hot, put on a hat from the cabinet after entering? That hat might not even be his, and he wasn't wearing a hat during the trial.
Why was number 8 still staring out the window when others were taking their seats? What was he thinking?
Why was number 8's initial reason for voting "Not guilty" not a specific reasoning, but rather a reluctance to hastily decide a child's life?
Why did number 8 only let everyone vote after saying that folding knives are not rare, when he clearly had other backup arguments? I can understand betting; if everyone refuses to give up their biases and has no stubborn beliefs, it would be impossible to convince everyone, but why so early?

Specific Controversial Events#

Proposer	Controversial Event	Evidence Provider
8	Folding knives are not rare	8
8	Voice, did the elderly man really hear the shout?	6, 8
11	Since fingerprints were wiped, why go back?	11
5	15 seconds is not enough to reach the door	8, 9
8	It's normal to forget the movie	8
2	The angle of the stab is incorrect	5
9	The vision of the woman across the street	9

Voting Each Time#

Voting Order	Not Guilty	Voting Reason
First	8	Doesn't want to rush to a conclusion
Second (written, secret)	9	Folding knives are not rare
Third	5	Voice, did the elderly man really hear the shout?
Fourth	11	Since fingerprints were wiped, why go back?
Fifth	2, 6	15 seconds is not enough to reach the door
Sixth	7	Bored, impatient
Seventh	12, 1	It's normal to forget the movie, the angle of the stab is incorrect
Eighth	12 changes mind	Testimony of the woman across the street
Ninth	12, 10, 4	The vision of the woman across the street
Tenth	3	To resolve his inner conflict, the child is innocent

My Thoughts#

Prejudice can obscure the truth, but because of steadfast beliefs (such as valuing logic, time, and respecting the elderly), there is a possibility of uncovering the truth in debates. However, these twelve individuals must have no vested interest in the case; they should not seek fame through jury service; they should not be overly concerned with appearances or stubborn; and they should not let others' status influence their speech. Alas! In this film, besides numbers 8 and 9 having real names, there is also one person, the defendant Modjelewski.