The Twelve is a compelling Flemish series that deviates from the norm for courtroom dramas.
Based on a character-driven premise, it succeeds in immersing viewers by leaving them in the dark at the conclusion.
So, we’ll be deducing who did it and who didn’t in this intriguing murder mystery based on the hints dropped during the film’s running length.
The story of “The Twelve” revolves around the horrific trial of Frida Palmers, who stands accused of killing her closest friend and their kid.
A jury of 12 people, plus an alternate, is selected in accordance with the law to hear both sides of the case and reach a fair verdict.
However, it is made clear early on that there isn’t a single “ideal” juror in the show. All of them have individual histories, personalities, and vices that shape their present.
This means that their verdict in the matter is merely a reflection of their character and values. Both the guilty and the innocent may benefit from it, but this is not guaranteed.
Who Was Responsible for The Death of Frie’s Daughter?
At the end of “The Twelve,” Frie is found guilty of murdering her best friend Brechtje but found not guilty of killing her daughter.
This means that the jury has decided to give Frie a 30-year prison term while letting Stefan off the hook. However, I disagree with the jury’s verdict. Let’s start with the cut that was made around the daughter’s neck.
Several times throughout the show, it is revealed that the incision was made on purpose, but only to cause minor injuries to the girl rather than killing her. In addition, it seems like the incision was made by a lefty in the show.
It appears that the fact that Stefan is, in fact, left-handed is just a diversion from the actual plot. This means Frie is the only possible suspect who is left-handed. Additionally, Frie’s prints were discovered on the shattered glass pane that was used to make the cut.
It’s also made obvious why Frie hurt her daughter. She wanted nothing more than to disprove Steefan’s careless parenting after losing custody of her kid.
Thus, the only damage done by the shard of glass was accidental. But she failed to see that it would be the cause of her daughter’s death.
She also has a borderline personality disorder and is a psychopath. She makes hasty decisions and worries about being abandoned because of this.
The final confirmation that she did it comes when her lawyer finds the missing gloves she used to kill her daughter in one of her daughter’s old books. According to this rationale, then, the jury made a bad call.
Who Is Responsible for Brechtje’s britt’s Murder?
While the mystery surrounding the daughter is somewhat explained, the circumstances surrounding Brechtje’s death remain shrouded in mystery long after the credits have rolled.
Frie was unfairly accused of the murder, in my opinion, because Stefan actually did it. When Steefan found out that Brechtje was pregnant while they were both in college, he was devastated and initially thought that she was having an affair with one of their professors.
While testifying in court, he falsely claimed ignorance about Brechtje’s pregnancy before her death, but a flashback shows otherwise.
In addition, his polygraph examiner still thought he lied when he said he wasn’t the one who killed Brechtje. Now, it’s true that a lie detector test might have its flaws, but Steefan passed with flying colors when questioned about the murder of his daughter.
It’s also possible that Steefan and Frie worked together to murder Frie. Since Frie had obviously pushed Brechtje to make that bogus movie against her father and also had her lost necklace, it is conceivable that she either knew that Steefan killed her or she was his partner in crime.
The conclusion of “The Twelve,” while irritating to some, maybe intriguing to others, especially those who enjoy playing “armchair detective.”
The series purposely leaves key plot aspects dangling solely to allow viewers to feel the fears and stress of the jurors. Although each juror’s ultimate choice is secret, the group’s deliberations before reaching a verdict can reveal a lot about the panel’s reasoning and evaluations of the evidence and the defendants.
Let’s dig deeper into their reasoning and find out what led them to make that choice. Arnold comes across as a solitary figure. After the loss of his wife, he develops close relationships with his monkey pets but has trouble forming friendships with other people.
Towards the end, he simply feels betrayed and heartbroken by the world and chooses to turn his back on everyone on the jury. So he frequently tries to go against the grain of the jury’s consensus when it comes time to make a call.
Delphine, a former fill-in teacher, bases her judgments on her own experiences in the field. As the jury begins to side with Frie on the basis that “no mother would mistreat her children,” Delphine speaks up to counter the sentiment.
Her husband’s earlier anger-fueled attempt to kill her motivates her to take this action. Because of what happened, she now thinks that anyone can hurt you, no matter how close they are to you.
Between these two extremes, Jorie and Holly bring their divergent moral perspectives. Holly’s parents were murdered when she was a child, and she watched helplessly from a closet.
She’s been deeply affected by the trauma of this experience and the weight of her own personal responsibility for it. She reasons that if Frie did kill her daughter, the shame she would feel forever would be punishment enough.
Contrarily, Jorie was guilty of similar action. After one of his illegal immigrant workers was hurt at the constriction site, he simply left the injured worker sitting on a bench and hurried off.
But he felt nothing but guilt when he learned that the worker had passed away shortly after being taken to the hospital.
This regret drives Jorie’s conviction that all guilt warrants punishment. Also, that’s why he winds up telling the cops what he did.