I'm having trouble posting, please forgive me if I have There seems to be no logic for the jurors to come to their "not guilty" verdict. In fact, I do not believe there was a significant amount of logic used to reach this conclusion. I say this with sincerity and no animosity to the jurors. I am reading a book by Bill Eddy, LCSW, JD. He is a family lawyer and therapist. His recently published a book, "Splitting," which focuses on high conflict divorce and the adverse nature of the family court system. He writes about a concept referred to as "peripheral persuasion: persuasion that goes on outside of conscious attention. (This concept) "has been studied for decades by those involved with advertising, politics, and negotiations (Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, 2010)." It is an indirect persuasive method by which one's perception is influenced by the attractiveness of the messenger, the aggressiveness of the messenger, the confidence displayed by the messenger, augmentative behavior, the intensity of their language, and their emotional appeal. Peripheral persuasion can trump factual data. Emotional expression is more contagious than cognitive arguments, especially if there are time constraints. "Only a very aware person or professional can resist (this) peripheral emotional persuasion." "Recent brain research indicates that the person with the most emotional expressions will dominate a group in the absence of hierarchy (Goleman, 2006). I think peripheral persuasion may have contributed to the not guilty verdict. I think it may have been an influencing factor within the courtroom, particularly during opening statements and closing arguments, as well as within the jury deliberation process. Perhaps jurors need to be given instruction regarding this concept so that they are fully aware of this human fallibility and are better able to participate in a logical rather than emotional sequence of problem solving within their own minds as well as with fellow jurors.already posted this.
