Thank you Orphan Crow for bringing some balance to this thread's discussions and enlightening information about the legal system that is designed to be as fair and as just as possible, even to the people we perceive to be the bad guys. I will keep an eye on you from now on. I get a feeling that I can learn from you.
Deposition of Richard Ashe
by truthseekeriam 51 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
OrphanCrow
You are most welcome, neverajw. Thank you for your kind words...I am sure you are not the only one 'keeping n eye on me'. Lol!
As far as the court transcripts go - the reason that I like them so much is that a person gets word for word testimony and word for word what the court says. It isn't somebody else's opinion on what was said - it is exactly what was said - including all the little errors we make in ordinary speech. The way that a person giving testimony puts together their statements can be revealing all by itself. It becomes more than the words themselves - the way it is said has importance.
-
never a jw
Orphan Crow,
In fairness to the opposition and based on the first 1/5 of the transcript that I have read so far, there are place where the person writing the transcript misheard or at the very least fail to figure out the right word from the context. She/he wrote "one and five" instead of "one in five" as the context suggests. In other places he/she may have commited the same error.
I noticed that the whole thing is in video too. Is the stenographer allowed to see that video to correct obvious transcription errors before printing and distributing the final product?
It's impossible to determine if the speaker misspoke or the listener misheard, but it's obvious that one of these problems happened quite frequently during the deposition. I haven't read many documents like these, so it's hard to comparatively "grade" this transcription. It, however, has many mistakes that appear to be inconsequential and could be attributed to the stenographer.
-
OrphanCrow
She/he wrote "one and five" instead of "one in five" as the context suggests. In other places he/she may have commited the same error.
I noticed that too. However, I recognized it as a speaker error and not a transcription error. If the court transcriber wrote down 'and', it is because 'and' was the word used by the speaker.
In some transcripts that I have read, the court transcriber will put in brackets the word 'phonetic'...meaning that the word is written as spoken. So a court transcript disregards even correct pronunciation - they use the word as it is said.
As I said before, a person makes many errors in spoken speech that are rarely picked up on if we are just listening - our brain makes the corrections for us when we are the listener, but when the spoken word is written down, the speech errors become evident.
I noticed that the whole thing is in video too. Is the stenographer allowed to see that video to correct obvious transcription errors before printing and distributing the final product?
I believe that with video taped proceedings, the video is used to supplement the transcript in order to increase accuracy. An accurate, word for word account is the objective of court transcripts.
-
never a jw
I must say that a stenographer has a tough job. Having said that, I either have to believe that the speakers misspoke quite frequently, or that the stenographer, given what appears to be numerous phonetic mistakes, concentrated in sounds, not even words or sentences. I understand that they have to write exactly what they hear, but we have to take into account, among other things, homophones that have to be put in context in order to get an accurate description of the speaker's message. I may be asking the unreasonable, but context should be important for a stenographer too.
-
OrphanCrow
I may be asking the unreasonable, but context should be important for a stenographer too.
Sorry...but context has absolutely zero to do with court transcribing.
Giving the stenographer the leeway to add 'context' would sabotage the intent of the transcription.
A transcript is meant to free of bias. Giving the stenographer that leeway would add bias to what was said.
-
the girl next door
It is not exactly what was said. It is what the recorder heard. Let's get real. Zalkin never referred to a "body builders" letter. He referred to "body of elders" letter but the recorder misheard and repeatedly entered "body builders letter.
There are obvious errors. This is just one example.
-
OrphanCrow
It is not exactly what was said. It is what the recorder heard. Let's get real. Zalkin never referred to a "body builders" letter. He referred to "body of elders" letter but the recorder misheard and repeatedly entered "body builders letter.
There are obvious errors. This is just one example.
That is correct. That is what the recorder heard. And what the recorder wrote down.
Yes, it is the wrong word. We know that. But it was how the word was pronounced in the courtroom that led to that error.
This is a typical court document.
I don't understand the problem people are having reading it. This is what court transcripts look like and read like.
-
the girl next door
Agreed. I read through the document and don't think anything overwhelmingly was lost by how it was recorded. Perhaps Zalking will clean up his enunciation of "body of elders" ;)
-
compound complex
I am enjoying the comments made here.
When I proofread galleys (printer's proofs) for the WTB&TS many years ago, entry information for new publications that came to my desk was, frequently, replete with errors. Here are a few that I recall: '[. . .] serving God with hardy purpose.' (Acts 11:23); ruffled grouse; Mars' Hill; Bablyon the Great.
I'll let you make the corrections.
Thanks!
CoCo