How to convince and persuade by the use of words is something that fascinates me. Regardless of whether the words are written or spoken the power to move other people with your choice of words and formulation of what you wish to say has been evident from time immemorial.
From Aristotle’s ‘Rhetoric’ (also known as ‘the Art of Rhetoric’, ‘On Rhetoric’, or a ‘Treatise on Rhetoric’) to Adolf Hitler to Martin Luther King to Winston Churchill to Barack Obama, the ability of a speaker, through the judicious use of words and some basic guiding principles, to make a change is clear.
Recently, I came across a video on YouTube from Simon Lancaster which sets out 6 rhetorical devices to allow you speak like a leader. Here’s the video
The 6 tools he identifies are
3 breathless sentences (eg ‘Veni, Vidi, Vici’)
3 repetitive sentences (‘we will fight them on the beaches; we will fight them on..’)
Contrasts (between what you are advocating for and the situation if you do nothing)
the use of metaphor
exaggeration (Donald Trump is a successful exponent)
a rhyme (‘if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit’ used by defence counsel, Johnnie Cochran, in the OJ Simpson trial)
These tools can be used in many situations where you wish to convince or persuade, not just in speeches or wishing to sound or speak like a leader.
And they are tried and tested for thousands of years since Aristotle first gave us the tools of rhetoric.
I touched on some lessons we can learn from Aristotle when it comes to communicating in this video:
If I was accused of murder I would hate to see Michael
Bowman SC prosecuting me. Although if I had Bernard Condon SC defending my
chances of acquittal would be greatly enhanced.
My attention has been arrested by the word pictures these
two men have been painting for the jury this week in the Patrick Quirke murder
trial-that is, the trial involving a so called ‘love triangle’ in Tipperary
involving Patrick Quirke, Bobby Ryan, and Mary Lowry.
Leaving aside a close examination of the evidence what I
have found fascinating and educational is the ability of these two senior
counsels to communicate with the jury in a way that is easily understood.
By painting word pictures.
Let me explain.
Much, or all, of the evidence against Patrick Quirke is
Anyone who has watched a tv programme involving law/crime
knows that circumstantial evidence is not the best evidence you can have. In
fact, it can be hugely problematic.
You may have heard the phrase that the evidence was ‘only circumstantial
evidence’ and therefore a conviction could not be safely arrived at.
Michael Bowman SC appeared, to this lay observer’s eye, to
address this problem when addressing the jury this week. He met the problem
head on and dealt with it up front by telling the jury “The human condition can
only tolerate so much coincidence before we shake our head and say that is not
coincidence – that is planned”.
In other words, he seemed to feel their pain but gave them a
perfectly reasonable out: a reason for conviction. He told them it wasn’t their
fault, that the human condition could only accept so much as coincidence.
In fact, he planted the image, in my mind anyway, of someone
shaking their head and saying ‘enough is enough, this evidence might be
circumstantial but this cannot just be explained as a coincidence’.
He then went further and addressed what they the jury had
seen during the course of the trial: Patrick Quirke, the accused, appearing as
a loving husband and father.
And even then, using their critical faculties, they would be
justified in bringing in a guilty verdict.
Mr. Bowman then painted the picture of the victim, Bobby
Ryan, as a man “living a quiet and peaceful and content life in a small
village, a man who lived his job, a man who loved music, a man who loved to
dance, who loved his girlfriend and who very dearly loved his two children.”
He said “Who would want to take the life of such a man?
To strip him naked of his worldly possessions and his dignity and leave his
body to decompose in a sealed chamber on a farm in Fawnagowan?”
The defence and the train
Then later Mr. Bernard Condon SC for the defence addressed
the jury. He, too, painted vivid word pictures for the jury. He told them about
a train and train stations. Everyone understands what a train is; nobody will
be left behind by being asked to imagine a train station.
But first, he told the jury that much was being made of
circumstantial evidence, but he warned that “circumstantial evidence is
not a shortcut to convict”.
And then he turned to the train images. He told the jury that
when they looked at the evidence, they were taking a journey in the
“forensic equivalent to a train”.
He said, “You are being invited by the prosecution to
go to the last station on the line, it will be uphill and will twist and curve”.
And he said the prosecution should be able to bring them to the very last
station on the journey with evidence as the fuel.
“If it isn’t the sort of evidence that you yourself
would be happy to be convicted on, if it is not grade-A fuel, you will not get
to the station at the top marked guilty,” he said.
Mr Condon said Mr Quirke was “parked in the train
station marked innocence” and it was up to the prosecution to move him out
of it and they had to do that with evidence.
But he said there was a problem here because “the
evidence is thin”. He said, “You will have to pass through several
stops, you may go past suspicion station, likelihood station and even
probability station, but if you get out there you are in the wrong place for
Word pictures and persuasion
I don’t know what the jury will do and, quite frankly, I don’t
envy their task.
But the value of images and story in the science and art of
persuasion has again been brought forcefully home to me by the powerful use of
words and images of these two lawyers at the peak of their powers.
I have written many times before about the value of story: