Table 6

Weaponising facts versus exposing the truth

Defence attorneys are more likely to say:
case805855100.420.27“This case is about John Paul Alexander. And neither their experts nor their fact witnesses have connected anything that Reynolds did to him.”67
facts12345550.320.31“Dr. Kyriakoudes came in here, and he tells the same historical advertising story about tobacco, no matter what the facts are of a specific smoker.”78
specific/ally8754360.340.32“…but they did not say anything about addiction specific to Mr. Buonomo.”79
mad124210.150.37“They were here to get you mad so that you would decide this case based on emotion rather than on the facts of the case of Betty Owens.”80
angry69170.200.41“….as opposed to these broad, general arguments that the plaintiffs have made (to) make you angry with the tobacco companies.”81
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are more likely to talk about:
doubt15504110.800.89“Remember, they said, ‘We still have to create doubt.’”82
truth15012920.840.87“Did the conspiracy hide the truth about death-causing traits of cigarettes? You better believe it.”83
conspiracy12593350.800.79“They engaged, the defendants did, in a conspiracy to create doubt about the health risks and addictive nature of smoking.”84
  • P value <0.0001 for all FS and MWR score.

  • FS, Frequency Score; MWR, Mann-Whitney Rho.