Naz's Case Study

There are other assumptions were made by his lawyer, and family. For example, Crowe negotiated a plea deal with the D.A. because she assumed that there are no chances of winning the case. On the other hand, Naz’s family assumed that the drugs may be affected on Naz and led him to kill Andrea. However, both those assumptions turned out to be incorrect by the end of the show. Stone assumed that there must be other evidence that proves Naz’s innocence, which turned to be right.
What biases, heuristics and misconceptions did the key players exhibit? Naz displayed a “representativeness heuristic” when he asked Chandra, his lawyers’ assistance, about what would she do if she were in his place. It is important to mention that Crowe knew that “ the more similar someone to us, the more likely are to trust”. She chose Chandra among all her employees to assist her in this case. In fact, in an earliest scene, Crowe asks Chandra” Where are your parents’ from?” and when
In an earliest episode, Box was just gathering information proves that Naz is the killer. Box ignores all the other evidence that states the opposite. For example, later in the trail, it turned out that there were two missing knives from the victim’s kitchen and the one was with Naz was not the murder weapon. Also, when Box was taking to the witness who walked by Andrea’s house and saw Naz with her, he ignored Naz’s saying that there were two witnesses, not one. It turned out later that there was another witness and he was a criminal who used a knifes from his victims home to kill them. More importantly, Box took Naz inhaler from the crime scene and give to him claiming that he wanted to help him. It turns out later that Box had disturbed evidence at the crime scene to make the murder fit. The detective irrational thinking led him to ignore and manipulate all those details and just focus on the evidence that confirms his