Given a question and a context passage, generate the answer having the word or phrase from the context passage. Here, the answer should be a shortest continous span from the passage.

Input: Consider Input: Context: The movie starts off with archive black-and-white footage of the Nazi's atrocities on the Jews across Europe. The focus shifts to West Belarus, where Nazi SS soldiers, under the command of Bernicki, the Belarussian Police Captain, are busy "sanitizing" a village, killing half the people and abducting the rest. Zus Bielski (Liev Schreiber) and his brother, Asael (Jamie Bell), watch helplessly from the forest. Once the Germans have left, they run to the village and are devastated to find their father dead. They go to their house and find their youngest brother, Aron (George MacKay), cowering under the floorboards in the closet. They take him with them to the forest.In the Lipiczanska Forest, Zus tells a weeping Asael to get a hold of himself. As they sleep, their eldest brother, Tuvia Bielski (Daniel Craig), walks up to them and wakes them up. He first admonishes Asael for not being alert, then embraces him and Aron emotionally. Zus and Tuvia have a rather curt reunion. As they walk into the forest, Zus tells Tuvia that his wife and child are hiding in a village. At night, they discuss their options. The police are after them, however they are safe in the woods. They talk about Bernicki. A friend, Koscik has a gun which they can borrow. Next morning, Aron stumbles across some other Jewish refugees in the forest. He brings them back to his brothers. One of them is a young child, mortally wounded. Unfortunately, they can't save her. As her parents grieve, Zus tells Tuvia that they can't support these people. Tuvia says he'll ask Koscik for food and his pistol.In the nearby village, Konstanty 'Koscik' Kozlowski, their friend and a secret Jew-sympathizer, lets Tuvia inside and gives him food, drink and his pistol, with only 4 bullets. Seeing a police car coming towards the house, Koscik hides Tuvia in the barn, along with some other Jews. It's Bernicki and his sons, who Koscik welcomes warmly. Bernicki talks about his Jew-hunting exploits. Bernicki talks about having killed the Bielskis' father and is now after the sons. He tells Koscik to keep his eyes open and leaves. After they're gone, Koscik gives Tuvia food and drink and asks him to take the Jews from his barn. Tuvia confirms that Bernicki and his sons were responsible for his parent's deaths. He then takes the other Jews and goes into the forest.As they walk into the forest, one of the Jews, an elderly man named Shamon Haretz, Tuvia's old school-teacher, talks to him about his experiences. Tuvia brushes him off. At the campsite, the food is being passed around, with each person taking a small morsel so the others can have some. Zus is upset that Tuvia brought more mouths to feed. Tuvia tells him that it was Bernicki who killed their parents. That night, he goes to Bernicki's house, where he is having dinner with his wife and two sons. Tuvia bursts inside and holds them at gunpoint. He asks them if he knows who he is and why he's there. Terrified, Bernicki says he did as ordered. Tuvia orders him to his knees. Bernicki's sons jump up to their father's aid, but Tuvia shoots them dead. He then shoots Bernicki dead. Bernicki's hysterical wife pleads with Tuvia to kill her as well. Leaving her alive and grief-stricken, he leaves.The next morning, Tuvia tells Zus he killed Bernicki and his sons. They decide to move deeper into the woods. Tuvia brings over more Jews, much to Zus' displeasure. One of them is Isaac Malbin (Mark Feuerstein). The refugees start building makeshift houses in the woods. After almost hitting Zus with a log, Isaac confesses that he's an intellectual, not a carpenter. A refugee introduces Tuvia to his "forest wife". Tuvia congratulates them, a bit unsurely. Just then, two men burst into the scene, one of them holding a rifle, while
Question: Where did the brothers flee?

Output: into another part of the woods.

Input: Consider Input: Context: For travellers who want to experience some of the history and mystery of the ancient world, here is a list of cool destinations for your next holiday. Angkor Wat, Cambodia Built in the 12th century, Angkor Wat (meaning "capital monastery") was a temple in the ancient Khmer capital city of Angkor. It is Cambodia's best-known tourist attraction and is famed for its beautiful architecture and reliefs. You'll need at least three days to fully discover the delights of this magnificent site. Machu Picchu, Peru Machu Picchu was built high in the Andes Mountains of South America by the Inca in the 15th century. Although well preserved its exact purpose is unknown. It is famous throughout the world not only for its incredible design but also for the natural beauty that surrounds it. Give yourself a week to explore this magnificent site. Stonehenge, England The entire Stonehenge site was constructed over thousands of years. But why and how it was built remains a mystery. As the weather can be pretty bleak in winter and the crowds huge in summer, we suggest autumn should be the best time to visit these monster rocks. Pompeii, Italy When Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D., Pompeii was buried under many layers of ash, preserving the city exactly as it was when the volcano erupted. Because so many objects were preserved, scientists and visitors are able to better understand daily life in the ancient Roman Empire.
Question: Which location offers the most direct view into daily life in the ancient world?

Output: pompeii.

Input: Consider Input: Context: In a New York City courthouse, an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly bored judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. If there is any reasonable doubt of his guilt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. The judge further informs them that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussion with the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the only "not guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.), who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars, wild, and dangerous.The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the "rarity" of the murder weapon (a common switchblade, of which he has an identical copy), and the overall questionable circumstances. He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he feels there is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded in hanging the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposes that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears. This earns intense criticism from Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who blatantly accuses Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) who had grown up in a slum of switching out of sympathy toward slum children. However, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) reveals that he himself changed his vote, feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an elderly man who claimed to have heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is often said by people who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether it is reasonable to suppose the defendant would have fled the scene, having cleaned the knife of fingerprints but leaving it behind, and then come back three hours later to retrieve it (having been left in his father's chest). Juror 11 then changes his vote.Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's body hit the floor, he had run to the door of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question had had a stroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon the end of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the witness must have
Question: Which juror did not vote guilty?
Output: juror 8