Many people from the village were in this house, which essentially makes the witnesses. This conflict was between an engaged couple. The man had invested a lot into his relationship with his spouse for quite some time. However, his fiance' decided to break it off and go her separate way. As the man was upset with the situation, he wanted back everything he had invested, which is reasonable for the reason that nobody should contribute to something/someone only for it to turn on them. Now, the outcome of this trial is of no importance of my point. The significance of this case is how it was carried out, the framework of how this conflict could have been resolved. Christie mentions five elements that outline how this case was presented. .
Firstly, both parties at conflict, being the former lovers, were in the centre of the room, essentially being the centre of attention for the surrounding witnesses (Kazmierski, Kuzmarov, Moore, Tasson, 2010, pp.9). These two talked frequently throughout the trail with each other and the audience would eagerly pay attention. This is different from the modern day court trials, where the offenders and victims are put in a corner, isolated from their loved one's who are sitting in the audience, uncomfortable stared at by others who are not related nor were present during the conflict, and under pressure by the judge who ultimately decides the outcome of the trial. Secondly, as opposed to how in the modern day court trial, both parties in this conflict were close to their relatives and friends, who also participated within the trial of the conflict, but did not completely take over (Kazmierski, Kuzmarov, Moore, Tasson, 2010, pp.9). Thirdly, there was participation from the audience, who would ask both parties questions about the conflict, as well as contribute to the conflict by lending their thoughts as well as information (Kazmierski, Kuzmarov, Moore, Tasson, 2010, pp.
