Defence attorneys are more likely to say: | |||||
Defence | Plaintiff | FS | MWR | Example | |
case | 8058 | 5510 | 0.42 | 0.27 | “This case is about John Paul Alexander. And neither their experts nor their fact witnesses have connected anything that Reynolds did to him.”67 |
facts | 1234 | 555 | 0.32 | 0.31 | “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/ally | 875 | 436 | 0.34 | 0.32 | “…but they did not say anything about addiction specific to Mr. Buonomo.”79 |
mad | 124 | 21 | 0.15 | 0.37 | “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 |
angry | 69 | 17 | 0.20 | 0.41 | “….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: | |||||
doubt | 1550 | 411 | 0.80 | 0.89 | “Remember, they said, ‘We still have to create doubt.’”82 |
truth | 1501 | 292 | 0.84 | 0.87 | “Did the conspiracy hide the truth about death-causing traits of cigarettes? You better believe it.”83 |
conspiracy | 1259 | 335 | 0.80 | 0.79 | “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.