The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Glenn E. Meyer · July 9, 2013, 08:23 PM

As I said before - and I've heard attorneys say this - it will be based on a micro analysis for reasonable doubt or a macro analysis that George started this and an emotional reaction to someone who ended up shooting a young man minding his own business.

Then we will see what the jurors say. They could easily hang and restart this in a year or two.

Assuming the jury will act the way you think they should is a mistake. The OJ jury, now carefully analyzed, ignored Marcia Clark's analysis that women would be negative to a wife beater. The jury experts said that the racial angle (don't start that here) of African-American women not being sympathetic to a white woman who married OJ and the prejudicial aspects of some police utterances would make them a bad jury. She knew better and lost big.

Also, that case is instructive on experts. A well known expert had a theory that wife battering usually led to death. Then she was hired by the OJ team and came up with a new theory - there were two types of batterers. One that kills and one that didn't. And guess what OJ wasn't one who killed - she didn't get called. But the expert lost her professional rep. and might have lost her license.

So that's why you have to be analytic and not accept someone as the truth.

About voice recognition - there is an effect in perceptual psychology that occurs in vision and audition. If faced with an ambiguous stimulus, you construct a hypothesis, then as the stimulus is repeated you start to perceive it as determine by your hypothesis. That's why the voice which sounds like a little girl screaming is not a good stimulus (as the FBI guy stated) and all the folks saying from their heart, it's my boy, the other boy, Georgie, whatever) are worth nothing. It's the visual witness that is more compelling but his testimony doesn't tell us how the fight started.

That will determine if the macro theory carries day.

The gender of the jury can play either way. After the decision, hindsight bias will convince some that they knew it all along.

July 9, 2013, 08:23 PM	#183
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	As I said before - and I've heard attorneys say this - it will be based on a micro analysis for reasonable doubt or a macro analysis that George started this and an emotional reaction to someone who ended up shooting a young man minding his own business. Then we will see what the jurors say. They could easily hang and restart this in a year or two. Assuming the jury will act the way you think they should is a mistake. The OJ jury, now carefully analyzed, ignored Marcia Clark's analysis that women would be negative to a wife beater. The jury experts said that the racial angle (don't start that here) of African-American women not being sympathetic to a white woman who married OJ and the prejudicial aspects of some police utterances would make them a bad jury. She knew better and lost big. Also, that case is instructive on experts. A well known expert had a theory that wife battering usually led to death. Then she was hired by the OJ team and came up with a new theory - there were two types of batterers. One that kills and one that didn't. And guess what OJ wasn't one who killed - she didn't get called. But the expert lost her professional rep. and might have lost her license. So that's why you have to be analytic and not accept someone as the truth. About voice recognition - there is an effect in perceptual psychology that occurs in vision and audition. If faced with an ambiguous stimulus, you construct a hypothesis, then as the stimulus is repeated you start to perceive it as determine by your hypothesis. That's why the voice which sounds like a little girl screaming is not a good stimulus (as the FBI guy stated) and all the folks saying from their heart, it's my boy, the other boy, Georgie, whatever) are worth nothing. It's the visual witness that is more compelling but his testimony doesn't tell us how the fight started. That will determine if the macro theory carries day. The gender of the jury can play either way. After the decision, hindsight bias will convince some that they knew it all along. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens