Conrad Murray Trial: Psychology May Aid Prosecution Case
Conrad Murray Prozess: Psychologie könnte Fall der Staatsanwaltschaft gegünstigen
November 02, 2011[This article is by contributing writer Ivy Bigbee. She is a Washington, D.C.-based writer.]LOS ANGELES – Aside from the graphs, charts and theories opining that Michael Jackson injected himself with propopol, a scenario defense expert Dr. Paul White offered in his Oct. 31 testimony. Caught in a thicket of visuals prepared by opposing counsel’s expert Dr. Steven Shafer, the hapless Dr. White found himself having to present the defense’s new theory: that Michael Jackson, dosed through the night with benzodiazapines, caused his own death by self-injection of propofol.
Can you picture anyone already sedated — to Jackson’s degree as evidenced on the “impairment” audiotape — being able to inject themselves in two minutes time with a fatal dose of medications available in the room?
Is the idea that the pop singer injected himself with propofol easy for the jury to swallow? Or, will they have trouble visualizing whether an already sedated Jackson -- with IV lines attached on each side of his leg or groin, and the added presence of a condom catheter -- may have grabbed a propofol-filled syringe after he awoke from an initial large 50 mg. dose and rapid infusion of the anesthesia drug?
Dr. White and the defense certainly have an uphill battle. The team members are at odds with cognitive principles taught to college students and reconsidered in law school as tools for creating effective statements of fact as well as openings and closings. Those aspects of a defense for Murray may be lacking because their case so far has failed to effectively organize — with respect to three areas: jury cognition and psychology.
With a nod toward conviction, this discussion relates a trio of psychological effects on memory: primacy, recency and uniqueness.
1. Primacy: Although it sounds silly, who with intact cognitive faculties could forget the first letter of the alphabet? The first of anything is less likely to be forgotten. We are likely to recall, for example, our first pet or first crush. People will remember with great detail the various events in their life stories if they are the first of their kind: their first car, perhaps, or first airplane trip, date, fish caught, painting or photograph created, etc.
In the Conrad Murray trial, for example, jurors may recall the shocking “impaired” audiotape of Michael Jackson, because it is the first — and possibly only — time they heard him speak while under the (likely) influence of medication. The recordings, in fact, are unforgettable, especially when compared to the clarity of Jackson’s work, which demonstrates a consistently focused Jackson.
2. Recency: It is easier to recall something or someone if they have figured in your recent plans, impressions, communications or even in dreams. In this case, the Conrad Murray jury should have no difficulty or hesitation recalling testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Steven Shafer, whose statements and opinions appeared to greatly interest the jury. With lawyers able to re-examine witnesses at any time during the trial, it is possible Dr. Shafer’s statements and eagerness to convey to the jury the case’s science aspects may come again before the jury.
3. Uniqueness: 1. Being the only one of its kind; 2. Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled.
Jurors will not forget that prosecution expert Dr. Shafer comes to court pro bono: for the good of the people, while Dr. Paul White says he expects to be paid $3,500 per day for services.
With mostly closing statements remaining, no doubt the concepts of primacy, recency and uniqueness will help to deliver justice.
http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2011/11/conrad-murray-trial-psychology-may-aid-prosecution-case.html
CosmicQueen schrieb:Jetzt wird wohl Walgren zum Opfer der MJ-Fans....aber der Mann hat schon was. :D :D
............. schlaf schön :D :D
schlaf und träume schön ... morgen müssen wir fit sein, um den Schlußplädoyers zu lauschen ... :D :D