/ declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
l
I would especially like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D. for his patience and
valuable advice.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 6
2. The Theoretical Part 8
2.1. Characteristics of Legal Language 8
2.1.1. Legal Genres 8
2.1.1.1. Legislative discourse 9
2.1.1.2. Police Interviewing 9
2.1.1.3. Judicial Discourse 10
2.1.1.4. Courtroom Discourse - examination 11
2.1.2. Context 11
2.2. In the Courtroom 12
2.2.1. Court Proceedings 14
2.2.2. Witness Examination 15
2.2.3. Power in the Courtroom 16
2.2.4. Storytelling 17
2.2.5. Turn-taking 22
2.2.5.1. Lawyers' strategies 23
2.2.5.2. Witnesses' strategies 25
3. The Practical Part 27
3.1. About the Analysed Text 27
3.1.1. The Shipman Trial 28
3.1.2. The Selected Extract 29
3.2. The Research Process 30
3.3. Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Questions 31
3.3.1. Counsel and Witness's Contributions 31
3.3.1.1. Cross-examination vs Examination-in-chief 32
3.3.2. Question Types 36
3.4. Witness's Responses 49
3.4.1. Context 50
3.4.2. Analysis 51
3.4.2.1. One-word Answers 52
3.4.2.2. Short Answers 52
3.4.2.3. Long Answers 53
3
3.4.2.4. Witness's Strategies 55
3.5. Pragmatic Aspects 57
4. Conclusion 64
5. Bibliography 67
6. Appendices 71
6.1. Appendix 1: Transcript of Cross-examination 71
6.2. Appendix 2: Transcript of Examination-in-chief 82
Summary 98
Shrnuti 99
4
List of Tables and Graphs
Table 1. Trial Stages and Participants
Table 2. Participants in the Shipman Trial
Table 3. Word Count: Cross-examination
Table 4. Word Count: Examination-in-chief
Table 5. Word Count: Cross-examination and Examination-in-chief
Table 6. Question Types in Cross-examination
Table 7. Yes/no questions: Polar and Either/or Questions
Table 8. Agreement and Memory Statements
Table 9. Agreement Tags
Table 10. Question Types in Examination-in-chief
Table 11. Length of Answers
Table 12. Modal Verbs: Changing the Topic
Table 13. Modal Verbs: Request for Witness
Graph 1. Contributions in Cross-examination an Examination-in-chief
Graph 2. Distribution of Various Question Types in Cross-examination and
Examination-in-chief
Graph 3. Distribution of Witness's Responses
5
1. Introduction
The thesis investigates the process of turn-taking in the courtroom. The main aim of the
thesis is to show that lawyers have a considerable control over a witness testimony and this
control is analyzed with special focus on the types of questions that lawyers pose. The thesis
is structured as follows:
The Theoretical Part of the thesis briefly outlines the main characteristics of legal
language and describes genres that are directly or indirectly connected to courtroom
discourse. Then the paper focuses on the features of language in the courtroom; after
introducing main courtroom procedures the paper looks at the area of witness examination
and discusses to phenomena related to this area; the notion of power in the courtroom,
storytelling in court and last but not least, it discusses the process of turn-taking in court and
describes lawyers' strategies employed in their questions and also witnesses' responses. The
theoretical part is based on the findings from the secondary sources, mainly chapters from
Gibbons's Forensic Linguistics (2003), Coulthard and Johnson's An Introduction to Forensic
Linguistics (2007) and Cotterill's Language and Power in Court (2003).
The Practical Part is a linguistic analysis of the trial with Harold Fredrick Shipman.
The research focuses on the topics mentioned above, i.e. the way lawyers take control over a
witness examination with a particular focus on question formulation and turn-taking process.
The primary sources, apart from the excerpt from the Harold Shipman trial, include
Cotterill's article on lawyers' control over witness testimony (2004), Gibbons's chapter on
interaction and power (2003) and Tkacukova's article on cross-examination questioning
(2010). Gibbons's and Tkacukova's question-type distinctions are used as an inspiration for
the actual analysis. Initially, the trial with Dr Shipman is briefly introduced and described
since familiarity with the circumstances of the trial is essential for understanding the context.
6
The main body of the practical part is the research itself. The quantitative analysis deals with
the balance of distribution of talk in the examination and the types of questions asked by the
defence lawyer in the cross-examination. The qualitative analysis attempts to explain the
question use. The witness's replies are also examined since it is useful to consider the
interaction between the questions and answers, rather than studying the questions in isolation.
The research takes into account other important factors, which are related to pragmatic
strategies. The findings are discussed and summed up in the thesis conclusion.
7
2. Theoretical Part
2.1. Characteristics of Legal Language
The language of the law is considerably different from common usage of a language.
Throughout history, the language of the law has been the special language of the powerful
and elite. The legal discourse in English speaking environment remains 'a specialised and
distinctive type or genre of English' (Maley 1994: 11-13). Coulthard and Johnson say that
'anyone who hears the term "legal language" thinks immediately of grammatically
complex, sparsely punctuated, over-lexicalized, opaque written text' (2007: 35). Legal
language has been criticized for its 'obscure expressions', complicated structures and
archaisms. As far as legal vocabulary is concerned, many words used in legal texts will be
ordinary expressions carrying their common meanings. Some words, though, have their
legal definition when used in a legal text. Legalise might be seen as a device for keeping
non-specialists at a distance (Bhatia 1994: 136). For instance, The Plain English Campaign
argues that the complicated language of the law is not necessary and agitates for less
complicated legal texts. On the other hand, the counter argument might be that to the
community of experts, these features ensure 'precision, clarity, unambiguity and allinclusiveness'
(Bhatia 1994: 136). It is worth mentioning that the extent of legal
language's complexity depends on the genre since the style depends on use and function
of the particular legal discourse. For instance, courtroom discourse has different
characteristics from the discourse of legislation. The following section looks at the genres
of legal language and distinguishes language in the courtroom from other legal genres.
2.1.1. Legal Genres
According to Coulthard and Johnson, genre can be defined as 'conventional, repeated
and distinctive features of text that arise from its communicative purposes' (2007: 55). The
8
authors observe that genres are hybrid and dynamic. Since each genre serves different
purposes, the characteristics of each genre will be different. The following sections deal with
some legal genres that are related to the language of the courtroom, and the language of
witness testimony in particular.
2.1.1.1. Legislative Discourse
As Bhatia puts it, 'legislative writing is highly impersonal and decontextualised [...]
general function of this writing is directive, to impose obligations and to confer rights' (1994:
136-137).Unlike in other written varieties, 'the parliamentary draftsman is only the writer of
the legislative Act' (Bhatia 194: 137). Legislative texts are meant for citizens but it is the
lawyers and judges who in fact read the documents and provide their explanations to ordinary
citizens. The following are the main linguistic characteristics of legislative writing: long
sentences, nominal character, complex prepositional phrases, binominal and multinominal
expressions (Bhatia 1994: 141-144). As far as binominals are concerned, 'binominals are up
to five times more frequent in English legal language than in most other prose genres'
(Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 36). Binominals are a result of the co-existence of French and
English, because in legal language, two synonymous words from the two languages were
taken and put in pairs (e.g. acknowledge and confess, null and void).
2.1.1.2. Police Interviewing
Police interviews are formal and they usually take place either at police stations or
prisons. The interview starts with writing down the place, date and time of the interview. The
names of the people present are recorded and the suspect is informed that s/he has the right to
remain silent. The interview itself attempts to reconstruct the second reality (the reality of the
crime). The structure of the interview is often narrative (Gibbons 2003: 142-43). Taperecording
changes the dynamics of the interview and both the police officer and the detained
9
person are aware of the physical presence of the tape recorder. The tape recorder might be
used as evidence in a later trial and the tape recorder represents a future audience (Russell
2002: 124). It is necessary to give verbal answers instead of, for example, nodding. Nonverbal
activities, such as showing a document, must be referred to by an expression: 'For the
benefit of the tape...' (Russell 2002: 114). The interviewing officer's aim is to find out
whether the suspect knowingly committed a particular offence. On the other hand, the
detained person attempts to deny that. Thus the participants' aims are contradictory. These
opposing aims form the main features of the interview. As far as the form is concerned,
interviews are often not just a sequence of questions and answers, but they consist of other
parts of speech as well. Russell claims that:
a) not all of the officer's turns are questions. Speech acts include informing, challenging,
agreeing, commenting and encouraging, with both narrative and evaluative moves;
b) not all of the detained person's turns are answers. They include informing,
challenging, agreeing, commenting, narrative, evaluative and even questioning moves
(2002: 114).
2.1.1.3. Judicial Discourse
Judges present their decision verbally in court. There is a difference between
continental judges and common law judges. The difference might play role in judicial
discourse since the way judgment is delivered in continental law system is different from
common law system. Continental judges' decision-making is restrained, whereas common
law judges are more independent and their skills should include good argumentation,
reasoning and they should master specialised vocabulary (Maley 1994: 42-3). This section
focuses on common law judicial discourse. There are certain elements that are common for
all judgments, such as: 'facts, an account of events and/or the relevant history of the case;
issues, either of fact or of law or both; reasoning; conclusion, the principle or rule declared
applicable for the instant case; order or finding' (Maley 1994: 44). Judicial discourse also
10
contains a certain level of intertextuality since other discourses and principles of law are
relevant for the judgment.
2.1.1.4. Courtroom Discourse - Examination
The last genre described in this section is the language of the courtroom. The typical
features of this genre are outlined briefly and more information is given later in the paper, in
chapter 2.2.2. Courtroom discourse is spoken and it is interactive. Examination consists of
question and answer turn-taking. Courtroom discourse consists of story-telling and power
strategies are very important during examination.
2.1.2. Legal Context
In addition to the analysis of forms and structures of legal discourse, it is also
important to take into account the context of the particular situation. Coulthard and Johnson
point out that 'the study of context is vital to the understanding and interpretation of legal
texts and forensic linguistic analysis' (2007: 62). The authors describe the use of spatial and
temporal expressions in police statements and courtroom discourse. For instance, they
analyse different realities in an extract from a police interview. They distinguish the primary
reality of the interview room, the secondary reality of the discussed event and the third
reality refers to a wider audience in the courtroom in the future. These different realities are
marked by the use of different tenses (2007: 63).
Apart from the situational context, another phenomenon is mentioned by Richard
Janney in his article on vague answers in court, and that is the linguistic cotext; i.e. 'the
immediate linguistic environment in which a unit of discourse of momentary interest to an
interpreter (a word, phrase, utterance, set of utterances) occurs and is interpreted in a
discourse sequence' (2002: 458).
11
It has been observed so far that when studying a piece of legal discourse, it is helpful
to take into consideration the genre and the context.
2.2. In the Courtroom
The main role of the court is to decide. The courtroom is a very specific setting, whose
participants have different roles. Maley observes that 'some participants are noticeable by
their verbal activity (counsel and witness), or by their physical position (judge or
magistrate(s)), and in some cases by their clothing, i.e. robbing (judge, counsel). Others are
almost entirely silent (jury)' (1994: 32). The physical layout of the room is also important;
the judge has the central, dominant position and the opposing parties face the judge. Trial is
often metaphorically compared to a battle, which is fought with help of words.
The Anglo-American system of trial proceedings in is the adversarial system, in which the
opposing sides present their version of the event. It is the system of two opposing parties; the
prosecution and the defence. The main aim of adversarial system is not to establish the truth,
but to convince the jury that one version of the crime story is more believable than the other.
Persuasiveness and performance are very important in adversarial system, thus the lawyers'
style is one of the crucial aspects of the trial. There are two crucial terms associated with the
adversarial system and these are the burden ofproof and reasonable doubt. It is the
prosecution's task to present a case where the burden of proof is fulfilled. The defence do not
have to come with their explanation of the event, the main aim is to show the imperfections
of the prosecution's constructed story. That means the defence try to create reasonable doubt.
It is necessary to mention that there are 'many more listeners than speakers in the courtroom,
with side conversations constrained and censored' (Coulthard and Johnson 2007: 97).
12
Now it is worth listing the participants and their speech roles in the courtroom:
• Judges: The judge is a representative of the Law and controls and moderates the talk
in the courtroom. The judge is not linguistically restricted, like other participants, and
the judge can address all members of the trial. The judge's role during most of the
trial is rather passive, most of his utterances are monologic. The judge instructs the
jury and apart from formulating the verdict, he also produces a powerful monologue
related either to the sentence or to the liberation of the defendant.
• Lawyers: Lawyers do not possess as much control as judges, however, they still have
a great deal of control over what is being said in court. Lawyers produce monologic
performance during their opening and closing arguments and they are part of dialogic
interaction with witnesses. This interaction is asymmetric as far as power is
concerned, and it is the lawyer who is in control of the turn-taking process. Chris
Heffer states:
'The counsel is above all a strategist engaged in acts of persuasion: persuading the
jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant; convincing the judge of the legal
admissibility or otherwise of an item of evidence; coercing the witness into answering
in a certain fashion' (2005: 95).
• Witnesses: Cotterill says that 'the typical criminal trial involves a range of testimony
from a variety of individuals, lay witnesses, police officers and experts' (2003: 156).
There is a significant difference between the roles of lay and expert witnesses. Expert
witnesses, according to Coulthard and Johnson, 'present their evidential findings and
explain technical aspects of the evidence to the jury, to enable them to evaluate its
importance' (2007: 112).
• Multiple audiences: Most of the talk in trial is addressed to the jury. In AngloAmerican
trial, the jury is selected from the public and the jury assess the evidence
13
from the witness examination and decide about the defendant's guilt during
deliberation process. However, it is necessary to stress that the jury is not the only
audience in court. Apart from the jury, there is also the public audience, press
correspondents and the court transcriber. This audience are required to remain silent
during the trial and they do not play any active role, however, Cotterill suggests that
they play symbolic role, i.e. they represent the 'people' (2003: 107).
The main participants in courtroom discourse have been named and now it is worth focusing
on the trial process itself.
2.2.1. Courtroom Proceedings
This chapter outlines the structure of a trial process. Before the trial begins, certain
steps must be taken, such as jury selection. The examination part of the trial is framed by
opening and closing arguments. The counsels open the case by an opening address, then there
is an examination-in-chief, where the witness is questioned by the supportive counsel (this is
called direct examination in the USA). Examination-in-chief is followed by a crossexamination,
which is carried out by the opposing counsel. If the supportive counsel finds it
important, a re-examination takes place. At the end of the trial, the counsels present their
closing address. According to Maley, 'the examination stage is usually perceived to be the
core of the trial process' (1994: 36). In the last stage of the trial, the judge and jury play the
most important role. This stage includes the deliberation process, the verdict and finally the
sentence or release of the suspect. Cotterill mentions two types of address: 'monologic, where
one speaker is addressing the court (e.g. opening and closing statements by the lawyers, or
the judge instructing the jury); and dialogic, where two speakers are interacting (e.g.
examination and cross-examination of witnesses). The following table created by Cotterill
(2003: 94) summarizes the stages in trial and the participants involved:
14
Trial phase Participants and dynamics
1 Preliminary Phase
Jury selection judge <-> jury pool
lawyers <-> jury pool
2 Evidential Phase
opening statements lawyers -> jury
witness examination lawyers <-> witnesses
closing arguments lawyers -> jury
3 Judicial Phase
jury instructions and summing up judge -> jury
jury deliberation juror <-> juror
Verdict jury foreperson <-> judge
sentencing/release judge <-> defendant
Table 1. Trial Stages and Participants
2.2.2. Witness Examination
Witness examination is a type of spoken discourse. However, it is different from usual
conversation. The courtroom setting is much more formal than everyday conversation and
such an environment creates social distance. Testimony is also marked by overexplicitness.
Lakoff points out that 'everything must be spelled out so that everyone can be sure of
deriving the same understanding from it: there must be no ambiguities.' (1990: page) Each
participant of the trial is aware of certain rules in the courtroom. From the linguistic point of
view, these rules do not refer only to the usage of formal language, but also to the role that
each participant has. Lakoff mentions typical roles of lawyers and witnesses: 'Lawyers may
ask questions but may not give witnesses information via declarative statements [...]
Witnesses, on the other hand, may only answer, not ask, questions and must answer
'responsively' - that is, directly to the point' (1990). As the quotation suggests, courtroom
discourse is nonreciprocal. However, Lakoff claims that although particular speech acts are
common for each participant, there are some exceptions. The witness may ask a question in
order to ascertain what the lawyer means. Coulthard and Johnson point out that
15
'Text and talk in forensic settings are done differently from social talk. A legal
conversation takes place in both a physical and an interactive context, one which
constrains social evaluation - we do not expect institutional speakers in legal contexts
to evaluate stories with interjections like 'Oh my God' or 'You don't say' - and
instead produces no reaction or a legal evaluation' (2007: 16).
Courtroom discourse also differs from a 'normal conversation' since it is prepared and based
on what has already been said during interviews, conversation with lawyers and in
statements. Thus, one of the typical features of courtroom, discourse is associated with
intertextuality, which will be discussed in more details in chapter 2.2.4., dealing with
storytelling in court.
To sum up, courtroom discourse is associated with formality, overexplicitness and, to
a certain extent, nonreciprocity. Besides these, courtroom discourse has two other important
aspects; power relations and storytelling.
2.2.3. Power in the Courtroom
As it has been mentioned before, courtroom discourse is a spoken discourse and the
relationships between participants are expressed in language. The two important relationships
are power and solidarity. The following aspects influence the distribution of power in the
courtroom:
• Lawyers use specialist language, which contributes to excluding the others from the
specialist group
• The justice system is a powerful institution, thus mere membership in the justice
system marks one's power
• Powerful honorifics such as His Honour are used in the courtroom
16
• Use of linguistic indicators of power: loudness, a larger pitch range, repetition, silent
pauses (rather than filled pauses - um, er), interrupting, not using expressions of
agreement, fluency and coherence
• Turn taking and control over what the person says (Gibbons 2003, 75-94).
Coulthard and Johnson claim that the distribution of power in court is often asymmetric and
the institutional speaker is usually given the power and control. Lawyers are also aware of the
effect of the word choice they make, whereas a lay participant is not familiar with the impacts
of chosen vocabulary. Coulthard and Johnson distinguish two different discourse types;
narrative and question-answer. The next two subchapters look closer at these two kinds of
discourse.
2.2.4. Storytelling
At trial, it is not just two opposing lawyers (or sides) who compete, it is also a place
of two opposing stories presented to the jury. According to Cotterill, the term narrative is
appropriate when talking about a trial since it includes not only the events themselves but
also the process of telling the stories and the relationship between the speaker and the
audience (2003: 20). Cotterill stresses the importance of the way narratives are uttered by
witnesses and strategically worked with by lawyers. It is clear that courtroom narratives differ
from literary narratives. Literary narratives are subjective and their aim is to entertain the
audience. Courtroom narratives have a different purpose and failure to construct a good
narrative has more serious consequences than disappointed reader or viewer. It is worth
mentioning that narratives in court lack linearity and that is due to the nature of the demands
of the process. Also, it is not just one story being presented at trial, but it is necessary to talk
about a number of different versions and perspectives of the story. The following section
outlines the structure of courtroom narrative:
17
Opening statement:
• 'summary of the story'
• provides an introduction and outlines basic information (participants, time, place, etc.)
• together with a closing statement frames the examination
Witness (cross-) examination:
• 'what happened'
• presents story events
Closing argument:
• 'point of story'
• evaluates and summarizes
• together with an opening statement frames the examination
Verdict:
• 'what finally happened'
• resolution
Sentencing/release
• closing the narrative
Narratives produced at court consist of two levels - one is the story of the crime and the story
of the investigation, i.e. the time from reporting the crime to the trial. The crime story
includes the events and the circumstances of the crime and the investigation story focuses on
motive and opportunity and looks at the details of the crime. These two types of stories are
18
closely related to one another and together, they create another story; the story of the trial
(Cotterill 2003: 21-22).
Gibbons works with terms primary and secondary reality when talking about phases
related to a crime and its investigation. The primary reality is that of the trial, whereas the
secondary reality takes place in the past and refers to the incident itself (for example a
crime). The main factors associated with the second reality are the following:
• 'a representation of the second reality'
• 'the fit between the secondary reality and the legal representation'
• 'the degree [...] between the secondary reality and legal theory' (Gibbons 2003: 147).
The jury's final decision is based on the representation of the secondary reality from the
witnesses and lawyers.
Since the time and space of secondary reality are different from the setting of the
courtroom (or police station, prison, etc.), it is necessary to represent the secondary reality;
this can be done in different ways. There are certain non-linguistic means that can be
presented in the courtroom and these include materials such as photographs or real objects
from the secondary reality.
Apart from non-linguistic ways of representing the second reality, there are other,
linguistic aspects associated with the shift between the primary and secondary reality. Since
the trial takes place at a different time than the event, time, space and perspective have to be
changed. Coulthard and Johnson discuss the primary and secondary realities and they notion
that for example 'the transitions between these two realities are indicated by shifts in tense'
(2007: 63).
19
Coulthard and Johnson also speak about a third reality, which might refer to the
future context (2007: 63). The authors give an example in which the police officer informs
the suspect about the impact of his/her utterances on the trial and counts with a wider
audience in the courtroom.
When discussing courtroom narratives, the different aims of the lawyers should be
taken into account. Cotterill suggests that:
'...the prosecution must satisfy the jury on several accounts. They must first establish
beyond reasonable doubt that an act actually occurred, in other words, that there is a
story to tell, and that the act is classifiable as a crime [...] in contrast, the defence need
only show that the prosecution's version is flawed in some significant respect' (2003:
27).
In court, the narratives are not told by a single speaker. They are presented by more
'voices'. The following text outlines the main voices in witness examination. There are two
sides in trial, the defence and the prosecution. The defence may approach the prosecution
story in various ways. One possibility is to challenge the prosecution story and doubt its
credibility. The defence may also try to change some parts and offer different alternatives
(for instance a different agent of the crime). Last, but not least, they can create a completely
different story and change the narrative. On the other hand, the prosecution is expected to
work with one version of a story. Both prosecution and defence narratives are based on the
accounts of witnesses. As it has been mentioned earlier, witnesses can be divided into two
types: the experts and the lay witnesses. In some cases, the voices of the victim and the
defendant are absent. In case of a murder, the victim obviously cannot testify; and in some
cases, the defendant does not testify either. However, the victim may make themselves heard
through the voice of the lawyer or through evidence. Janet Cotterill gives an example from
the O.J. Simpson trial, where the voice of one of the victims, Nicole Brown Simpson, is heard
via playing a tape with her emergency calls (2003: 54-5).
20
After having discussed the role of the speakers in court, it is worth dealing with the
relation between the narrative in court and its listeners. Courtroom narratives are constructed
mostly for the judge and jury, who are part of the audience in the courtroom. In fact, jury
create their own narrative based on the stories that have been presented in the witness
examination. If the evidence or story is to be accepted by the jury, the lawyers have to
produce coherent and well-structured narrative. Cotterill names a number of aspects that play
an important role in jurors' acceptance of the stories related to the crime:
• consistency: there should not be any contradictions in the story
• completeness
• plausibility: the story has to 'make sense' (2003: 60-61).
The narrative has been repeated and retold many times by the time it reaches the
courtroom (for instance in police interviews or witness statements). In her article about
intertextuality, Cotterill says that 'intertextual references to previous proceedings are
commonplace in the courtroom, since witnesses are frequently questioned about sections of
their police interviews or statements when they appear in court' (2002: 149). The importance
of consistency has been mentioned above, but it is important to add that apart from being
internally consistent, various versions of the narrative should be consistent as well. There
were two different types of trials with O.J. Simpson. The first one was a criminal trial and the
second one was a civil trial filed by the families of the victims. Cotterill points out the
relationship between the two trials and first mentions the differences between the trials, for
instance the numbers of witnesses were different in each trial. The prosecutions put emphasis
on 'the human dimension of the case' (2002: 152) and called fewer police officers to testify.
In Robert Heidstra's testimony, the defence referred very often to his previous criminal case
testimony and by quoting his direct speech from the criminal trial transcript the defence tried
21
to make the witness look unreliable and emphasized discrepancies in his testimony. This
example of intertextuality is rather unusual, since most cases do not have criminal and also
civil trials but referring to earlier versions of witnesses' narratives, such as interviews or
statements are much more common.
2.2.5. Turn-taking
Turn-taking is the subject of analysis in the practical part of the paper. This chapter
outlines the theoretical information and aspects related to turn-taking.
Questions and their adjacency pair partner, answers, are of fundamental importance to
the trial by jury process. The dialogic questioning of witnesses, by lawyers from both
sides, is the basic activity which dominates the trial and is the mechanism by which
the elicitation of the conflicting crime narratives is achieved (Cotterill 2003: 126).
Gibbons claims that there are two aims of legal questioning. The first aim is to elicit
the information. That is the expected reason for questioning and this type of questioning is
'unmarked'. The second one is to 'obtain confirmation of a particular version of events that
the questioner has in mind' (2003: 95). This type of questioning would not be labelled as
unmarked since lawyers do not really want to get any new information. In fact, they often
wish that no new information is revealed because that would influence their prepared
description of events.
Questioning is one area where institutional talk can differ substantially from everyday
conversation. Where there is an imbalance in the power relationship between the
speakers, there is a tendency for the more powerful speaker not only to give more
directives [...] but also to ask more of the questions, and for the less powerful speaker
to be expected to provide more answers (Gibbons 2003: 95).
Thus, the turn-taking process in court is influenced by the power relations between the lawyer
and witness. The following section focuses on strategies used by these participants in greater
detail.
22
2.2.5.1. Lawyers' Strategies
Lawyers control the questioning in various ways; they are in charge of turn-taking and
topic-raising. As it has been already suggested, the main objective of questioning at trial is to
win the case, rather than to discover the facts.
From the lawyer's perspective, all the questions asked, whether in direct or crossexamination,
should optimally be display ,in other words dealing with pre-existing
knowledge on the part of questioner, rather than referential, involving a genuine
request for unknown information (Cotterill 2003: 132).
The main aim of the counsel is to present a particular version of the events and obtain
confirmation from the witness. One of the strategies aimed to present the desired version of
the events is to include as many details as possible in the question. This type of questions
often leads to 'yes' or 'no' response. This question type is called 'leading question' (Gibbons
2003: 101) and it provides the questioner with a greater control over what is being said.
Lawyers might form their leading question in a way that it is difficult to challenge. Leading
questions are common in cross-examination in particular. Lawyers are not allowed to use
leading questions in direct examination and the opposing counsel can object to a question, if
they think the question contains some information that is not true.
Gibbons mentions a number of pragmatic devices used by counsels. These pragmatic
strategies may be divided into two categories; the first category focuses on the person giving
the testimony and the second one is related to the presentation of the events.
In case of the first category, the lawyer may attempt to portray the witness as
unreliable and might question the credibility of the witness. In such a case, the counsel
applies status reduction. When questioning his own witness, the counsel may employ the
process of status support, in which he emphasizes the capacity of the witness. This is usual
particularly in expert witness testimony. Lawyers also use different forms of addressing the
23
witness. When an expert witness is addressed by his professional title (for example Doctor),
his knowledge and capacity are emphasized. Another technique is to 'personalize friendly
witnesses' and 'depersonalize opposition witnesses'. For instance, a friendly witness would
be called by his first name and surname (or just the first name) and the opposition witness
only by surname. In order to doubt the witness's credibility, lawyers can also point out
contrasts between statements by the witness, they can adjust their language to create or
minimize social distance and they can use silence, overlapping and interruption strategically.
As it has been already mentioned, the second technique is related to the testimony
itself. One of the most powerful strategies is the counsel's lexical choice. The effect of the
questioning and the content of the responses can be changed by the choice of words and very
often small differences play quite an important role. Danet (1980) describes a famous
American trial dealing with illegal abortion. The prosecution used the word baby, whereas
the defence used the expression foetus and claimed that manslaughter cannot be committed in
case of afoetus. The prosecution won the case because the jury agreed with their wording. It
is necessary to say that lexical choice in the courtroom influences perception. Counsels also
use repetition as a tool of highlighting inconsistencies between witnesses' replies or, with
help of repetition, they show their disbelief of the answers. Lawyers' questions often contain
various presuppositions and their questions are sometimes formulated as narratives, as it was
discussed in the previous chapter. Counsels often tend to evaluate witness's reply and this can
be considered a face-threatening act. Apart from these, lawyers may also work with timing
and pace of the questioning. More types of strategies employed by lawyers are going to be
discussed in the analysis in the Practical Part.
24
2.2.5.2. Witnesses' Strategies
When analysing the process of turn-taking in court, it is crucial to take into account
both sides of the questioning, thus witnesses responses say much about the nature of the
questioning as well. Although the analysis focuses mainly on lawyers' questions, it is useful
to look at the responses, because questions and answers form pairs and many questions are
dependent on the previous answer
The witness' choices in the interaction are rather limited in comparison to the
lawyer's ones. In court, witnesses are expected to satisfy Gricean maxims in their responses.
Janet Cotterill claims that: 'when they take their oath prior to testifying, witnesses swear to
tell "the truth, (maxim of quality) the whole truth (quantity) and nothing but truth (relation)"
(2003: 104). Maxims of quality, quantity and relation are three of Grice's maxims, the fourth
one is the maxim manner. This maxim is included in the requirement of responsive and
satisfying answer. If the witness does not follow the maxim of manner, he might be
considered 'non-responsive'. Richard Janney argues that very often 'non-responsive' answers
are closely related to unclear question asked by the counsel:
'In fact, answers interpreted as vague or inadequate in the courtroom are often no
more intrinsically unclear than the questions they are intended to answer. That they
are interpreted as "evasive" or "nonresponsive" in spite of this is partly attributable, I
will argue, to the self-contextualizing effects of cotext and to the strategies of clever
questioners whose questions make it difficult for a defendant to give a more specific
answer without risking self-incrimination' (2002: 459).
Janney stresses the importance of the answer formulation in relation to the wording of the
preceding question. The author analyses vague aspects of responses in the O.J. Simpson trial
and among others, he lists these examples: definite —> indefinite, particular act —> frequent
act, particular object —> numerous objects (2002: 468-471).
25
Witnesses do not have much control over trial interaction and over their own
responses. Their role in court is to response and they should not initiate talk or attempt to
evaluate what is being said. There is difference in witness strategies in direct and crossexamination.
There is also a significant difference between the roles of lay and expert
witnesses. Expert witnesses are given more freedom in their answers than lay witnesses. The
lawyer still possesses most of the control over the turns and topic-raising, the expert witness
is asked more information-seeking questions, and there are fewer interruptions and less
overlapping in expert witness examination.
Child and vulnerable witnesses form a specific type of witnesses. Michelle Aldridge
and June Luchjenbroers suggest that'[...] linguistic manipulations can weaken a witness's
account by suggesting that she is to blame, and/or is lying or perhaps has simply
misunderstood the situation' (2007: 85). When talking about linguistic manipulations, the
authors refer to lawyer's tendency to 'insert (negative) information into a witness's testimony
through suggestion' (2007:85).
26
3. The Practical Part
3.1. About the Analysed Text
When choosing a text for analysis, one of the deciding factors is the availability of the
materials. In case of legal texts, transcripts are hardly ever available for public. For instance,
transcripts of police interviews are almost impossible to find. In case of court discourse, one
of the possible options is to select a very famous trial, such as the O. J. Simpson Trial.
However, the possible pitfall is that some linguist has already analyzed such a text
thoroughly. For instance the O.J. Simpson Trial has been analyzed by Janet Cotterill in her
book Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial (2003).
Thus, by selecting this trial, one might risk repeating what has already been researched by
somebody else. On the other hand, reading actual analyses of legal texts helps in doing one's
own research and might serve as an inspiration for analyzing a different primary source.
Another type of legal discourse that is publicly available is inquiries. Very often the public or
families involved in the case demand publicizing the case, as in the case of the Shipman
Inquiry, but also in case of other famous inquiries, for instance the Hutton or Iraq Inquiry in
the UK. There is always a chance that a famous trial has been researched by somebody else,
but it is possible to come up with a different research topic or think of a different structure of
the analysis.
Before commencing the analysis itself, the Shipman Trial is briefly introduced and the
context of the selected text is outlined. In order to understand a text well, it is essential to
explore the background and context of the speech situation.
27
3.1.1. The Shipman Trial
According to the BBC, the case of Harold Shipman was 'one of the blackest chapters
of British criminal history' (BBC News, 13 January 2004). Harold Fredrick Shipman was a
General Practitioner in Hyde near Manchester. He was accused of murdering fifteen of his
patients and he was convicted of the murders and of forging a will at Preston Crown Court on
31 January 2000. 'The prosecution asserted that Shipman had killed the fifteen patients
because he enjoyed exercising control over life and death, and dismissed any claims that he
had been acting compassionately, as none of his victims were suffering a terminal illness.'
(Crime and Investigation Network). Table 2 shows the most important participants in the
trial:
thejudge Sir Justice Thayne John Forbes
the
prosecution
Leader of the prosecution: Richard
Enriquez QC
the defence Defence chief: Nicola Davies QC
Witnesses
more than a 100, including Dr
Shipman himself
Table 2. Participants in the Shipman Trial
The hearings lasted 58 days and Shipman was sentenced to life imprisonment. The
judge recommended that he never be released.There were also allegations that Shipman
might have murdered more patients during his career as a GP.
A private inquiry commenced work on 10 March 2000. The aim of the inquiry was 'to
establish what changes to current systems should be made in order to safeguard patients in
the future' (The Shipman Inquiry). Influenced by many families and media, the inquiry was
made public and the independent public inquiry began in February 2001.
In January 2004, Harold Shipman committed a suicide in his prison cell at Wakefield
Prison (BBC News, 25 August 2005).
28
3.1.2. The Selected Extract
The choice to analyze a cross-examination was based on the assumption that crossexamination
contains more examples of linguistic strategies since the opposing lawyer is
supposed to be more coercive than the friendly one. Though, the extract is not a typical
example of cross-examination because the witness is a barrister herself. However, she is not
in the position of an expert witness. The fact that the witness herself is a lawyer has been
taken into account.
The extract selected for the analysis is a cross-examination of one of the key
witnesses, Angela Woodruff. Ms. Woodruffs mother, Kathleen Grundy, was one of Dr.
Shipman's victims. At the age of 81, she was still active and her sudden death was a shock to
those around her. Moreover, Harold Shipman forged her last will in order to obtain all her
property. The case report from the inquiry concludes:
This was a clear case of morphine poisoning, proved by the post-mortem results. Even
leaving that evidence out of account, there are a number of noteworthy features:
• This was a very sudden death of an elderly person in good health. It was discovered
shortly after a visit from Shipman during which he was alone with her.
• Shipman claimed or implied that Mrs Grundy must have left the door unlocked after
letting him out. This is a feature of other cases where Shipman has been unable to
leave the security system in the condition in which relatives would have expected.
• The medical records had been falsified to show that Mrs Grundy was unwell just
before her death and that Shipman had suspected her of drug abuse. Even so, they still
showed that Mrs Grundy had been in good general health and had no potentially fatal
conditions or increased risk factors.
• The cause of death, 'old age', was quite inappropriate for a person who had been in
such good health (The Shipman Inquiry).
It is crucial to point out that Angela Woodruff is a lawyer, and this fact played an important
role in the case. First, she was in charge of her mother's previous testamentary arrangements
and she was also the beneficiary in her mother's last will. Second, Angela Woodruff was sure
29
that being a solicitor helped her convincing the police. She stated: 'Once they knew that I was
a lawyer, it became much easier [...] I suppose I was more likely to be objective being a
solicitor. I also realised the seriousness of the case straight away' (BBC News, 4 February
2000). Third, as a solicitor, Angela Woodruff was in a different position in the trial
questioning since any professional lawyer would probably have good argumentation skills
and would be aware of other lawyers' practices.
The examination of Angela Woodruff took place on the fourth day of the trial, on 13
October 1999. Mrs. Woodruff was first examined by the prosecution council, Mr. Henriques
and the cross-examination (held by Miss Davies) followed afterwards. Then Angela
Woodruff was re-examined by Mr. Henriques.
3.2. The Research Process
This chapter outlines the stages and aims of the analysis. First of all, the process of
turn-taking is analysed quantitatively. In order to explore the power relations between the
questioner and the witness, it is useful to look at data and numbers.
At the beginning, the contributions by the counsel and the witness are analysed. That
should provide some information about the power relations in the testimony and about the
lawyers' tendency to present his/her version of the narrative. In order to assess the level of
power control in the cross-examination, amounts of words uttered by the counsels and
witness in the cross-examination are compared to the examination-in-chief.
Then the frequency of different types of questions is discussed. The question types
discussed in the following chapter are: wh-questions, indirect questions and requests, yes/no
questions, declarative questions, tag and non-sentence questions. The analysis is aimed to
30
show which questions are preferred by the questioner and the effect of these questions is
elaborated later on.
The data from the quantitative analysis are not sufficient and it is important to go
deeper into the text and explain the findings. For instance, if a certain type of question is
frequent, it is useful to explore what purpose such a question type serves and then discuss if
the strategy is successful and the witness replies and co-operates in the way desired by the
lawyer. Thus, a qualitative analysis follows and attempts to explain the purpose and effect of
different questions. Again, the question forms in the cross-examination are compared with the
questions in the examination-in-chief.
The next part of the research focuses on witness's answers. It might be useful to look
at the responses rather than study the questions in isolation. By studying the answers, one is
able to comment on the effect of the questions. Length of questions is considered and the
questions are divided into three categories; one-word, short and long answers. The analysis
tries to define which questions these specific answers react to. Other features typical of the
answers in the selected text are discussed.
Apart from the analysis of the actual turn-taking process, pragmatic devices used by
the lawyer are dealt with. Chapter 3.5. investigates other pragmatic aspects present in the
examination such as status reduction, use of modals, lexical choice, reformulation and
interruption.
3.3. Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Questions
3.3.1. Counsel and Witness's Contributions
It has been mentioned in the Theoretical Part that the lawyer often attempts to be the
narrator of the trial story. Cotterill claims that 'the majority of research into courtroom direct
31
and cross-examination has found that witnesses are effectively prevented from "telling their
own stories'" (2004: 513). This would suggest that the counsel might try to give much
information him/herself instead of letting the witness speak. Thus, counting the number of
words uttered by the lawyer and witness helps to determine whether that is the case in the
selected cross-examination. Numbers of words uttered by the questioner and the addressee
can be found in the following chart:
Total number of words 4,657
Witness's contribution 1,394
Lawyer's contribution 3,264
Table 3. Word Count: Cross-examination
The data clearly state that the distribution of talk is not even. Moreover, the lawyer actually
utters many more words than the witness. With 1,394 words out of 4,657, the witness's part
of the talk forms only 30%. The data suggest that the counsel does give voice to most of the
narrative in the examination and therefore the witness is prevented from giving her own
account of the events.
In cross-examination, the witness is questioned by the 'unfriendly' lawyer. That
means the questioner is keen to limit the witness's replies. The question is whether the
balance of power is very different from examination-in-chief. In order to find out, the
participants' contributions are counted also in the examination-in-chief performed by the
'friendly lawyer' Mr. Henriques before the cross-examination.
3.3.1.1. Cross-examination vs Examination-in-chief
It can be assumed that the 'unfriendly' counsel in cross-examination would be more
coercive than the 'friendly' one in examination-in-chief. In this chapter the two trial subgenres
are compared in order to evaluate whether the balance of words in examination-inchief
is more even. The witness's and lawyer's utterances have been counted:
32
Total number of words 7,296
Witness's contribution 2,438
Lawyer's contribution 4,858
Table 4. Word Count: Examination-in-chief
The results show that in case of the examination-in-chief the lawyer utters 66% of the words,
leaving the witness only with a 34% contribution. Table 5 compares the distribution of talk in
the cross-examination and examination-in-chief:
Cross-examination Examination-in-chief
Witness's contribution 30% 34%
Lawyer's contribution 70% 66%
Table 5. Word Count: Cross-examination and Examination-in-chief
• Cross-examination
• Examination-in-chief
witness's contribution lawyer's contribution
Graph 1. Contributions in Cross-examination an Examination-in-chief
Clearly, the lawyer's contribution is not much smaller in the examination-in-chief. The
distribution of talk is almost the same in the examination-in-chief as in the cross-examination.
The difference between the results does not seem to be significant enough. One might ask
about the reasons for such results. One of the possible explanations is that long stretches of
talk by the counsel are typical for the adversarial system and that both the examination-inchief
and cross-examination lawyers wish to present their prepared account of events. As it
33
has been mentioned earlier in the theoretical part, counsels wish to persuade the jury with
their 'narrative'. Thus, no matter whether a friendly or opposing lawyer, the questioner tries
to present most of the story him/herself. The second possible reason might be the long
introductory part of the examination-in-chief, in which Mr. Henriques and Angela Woodruff
go through all personal details. Most of the information provided in this introductory part is
facts, which are consequently confirmed by the witness. The following question-answer
sequence is taken from the beginning of the examination:
Q. If at any stage you would like a break, it will be no problem. Is yourfull name
Angela Woodruff?
A. It is.
Q. And Mrs. Woodruff your occupation please and profession ?
A. I am a lawyer.
Q. And a solicitor by training and qualifications?
A. Yes I am.
Q. And do you now live in ************** in ************?
A. I live in ******* which is near ************* yes%
Q. Do you carry out your practice in that part of the world?
A. I carry out my practice in ********
Q. Are you the only child of Kathleen Grundy?
A. I am.
Q. And did she own the property at 79 Joel Lane in Hyde?
A. She did.
The witness is expected to give short answers and it is also worth stressing that this part of
the examination is not supposed to be 'persuasive' or 'narrative-like' and it does not
34
contribute to the prepared version of events. In the examination-in-chief there is also a rather
long stretch of discourse related to the evidence material in the trial process:
Q. There are then a number ofphotographs taken upstairs that we need not concern
ourselves with but 52, is that a view of the lounge?
A. Yes.
Q. 53, also of the lounge?
A. Yes.
Q. 54, again in the lounge and 55?
A. Yes.
Q. And 56, showing the staircase leading up out of the lounge, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And likewise 57, the lounge?
A. That's the lounge, yes.
Q. 58 and 59, are those views of the rear garden?
A. Yes.
Q. And 60 and 61, a view of the back of the house from the rear garden looking
towards the house ?
A. Yes.
Q. 62, a view of the wooden garage at the rear of the house?
A. Yes.
Again, in this part of the interview, the witness replies shortly and the information does not
serve any persuasive aim. The questions related only to picture evidence are not counted in
the analysis.
To sum up, in both the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, the counsels
say many more words than the witness and in that way they take control over the testimony,
35
regardless whether they are the 'friendly' or 'unfriendly' lawyers. However, in the
examination-in-chief, the witness is introduced for the first time and several questions
dealing with personal details are asked. In such parts, the witness is expected to give very
short answers and these parts do not have the narrative function.
3.3.2. Questions Types
The main body of the analysis deals with question types. It was rather difficult to
select the question types to be analyzed since there are many possible options and divisions.
Tatiana Tkacukova's question types were used (2010) as an inspiration since the author
analyzed cross-examination as well, so the aim of her research was similar. The grammatical
form of a question might not say enough about the lawyer's intention; for instance certain
questions can theoretically be answered by single yes or no, but in reality, they invite more
information to be provided. And so they might be in the group of closed questions, together
with declarative or tag questions, but they will be less coercive. In general, questions may be
difficult to categorize since formal point of view is not sufficient and it is necessary to use
more detailed categorization. However, such categorization might become too complicated
and difficult to work with.
According to Tatiana Tkacukova, 'a researcher conducting a study on crossexamination
question types faces an important decision in selecting an adequate typology of
questions' (2010: 338). Tkacukova mentions the 'widely accepted categorization' of
questions: open and closed questions. Open and closed questions have more categories and
the level of coerciveness depends on the specific category. The categories used in the analysis
are the following: wh-questions, indirect questions and requests, yes/no questions, declarative
36
questions, tag questions and non-sentence questions. Tkačuková gives more types of
questions for each category1
:
Open questions:
1. Wh-questions
• Open wh-questions (e.g. What is the point of your book?)
• Routinized wh-questions (e.g. When did you develop your interest in psychiatry?)
2. Indirect questions and requests
• Imperative requests (e.g. Then please explain to me what the purpose of that
sentence is?)
• Indirect wh-questions (e.g. Can you tell me what sorts of people or organizations
the associate members are?)
• Indirect yes/no questions (e.g. Could you tell me if there was any monitoring of
turnover rate?)
Closed questions:
3. Yes/no questions
• Grammatical yes/no questions (e.g. Do you have any connection with the animal
rights organisation?)
1
The typology used by Tkacukova should be included on Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics,
available from www.forensiclinguistics.net. For the purpose of this paper, the resource used was a handout from
a seminar in Forensic Approaches to Language (University of Leeds) provided by the editor of the book, Ms
Alison Johnson.
37
• negative grammatical yes/no questions (e.g. Is that not an argument in favour of
eating fish?)
4. Declarative questions (e.g. That is a task which can easily be performed by an intelligent
layman?)
5. Tag questions
• Reverse polarity tags (e.g. You would encourage us to do it, would you not?)
• Same polarity tags (e.g. Your devotion to vegetarianism springs entirely, does it,
from a concern for human health?)
• Agreement tags (e.g. when you tell people not to eat fish, it is not the fish you are
worrying about, it is the people, is that right?)
6. Non-sentence questions (e.g. Sociopsychological causes?)
Tkacukova also states:
The type of answers expected is related to the degree of coerciveness of different
question types. Out of the most frequent types of closed questions, yes/no questions
are generally regarded as the least coercive type as they offer at least a limited
possibility for witnesses to digress. In comparison to yes/no questions, tag questions
and declarative questions are strongly biased towards a confirmative answer and so
they are more coercive [...] (2010: 339).
Declarative and tag questions seem to be the most strategic types of questions used by
questioners since they really limit witnesses' utterance options. However, there are other
factors influencing the impact of the questions. These are for example intonation or voice
tone. Gibbons (2003: 102-107) analyzes types of questions in a great detail and suggests a
number of different question types.
For this research, Tkacukova's question types are going to be analyzed and counted.
Gibbons's notes on various question types will be also taken into account when analyzing the
38
intention of the lawyer's questions. The frequencies of the above mentioned question types
are summarized in table 6:
number percentage
wh-questions 8 6%
indirect questions and requests 15 13%
yes/no questions 26 22%
declarative questions 54 45%
tag questions 12 10%
non-sentence questions 5 4%
Table 6. Question Types in Cross-examination
As the data clearly show, the use of declarative questions is by far the most frequent in the
selected cross-examination. Declarative questions form almost a half of all the question types.
They do not have a word order of a question, but of a declarative sentence and they are
followed by a question mark. Many of these questions contain all the information and they
only seek for confirmation. Gibbons says that 'the more information included in the question,
the greater the questioner's control of the information, so the answerer can contribute less
new information. In legal terms, a question that includes the information is a "leading"
question' (2003: 101). It is worth mentioning that some of the declarative questions are
noticeably long and complex. The following example is from the beginning of the
examination:
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, I am sure no-one in this Court will have any difficulty whatsoever
understanding if there are difficulties remembering precisely what occurred in either
of those conversations. Can I deal please with simply one other aspect of the
conversation between yourself and Dr. Shipman on the morning after your mother's
death. Insofar as there was a cause of your mother's death, you have told the Court
that Dr. Shipman was explaining that people of a certain age can die, actually over a
39
short period, of old age?
A. Yes.
It is clear that the lawyer's utterance contains much information and in this case the witness's
answer is just one word. However, some of the declarative questions are followed by a longer
reply, and that shows that they might invite an explanation, or that the witness wishes to
challenge the statement:
Q. Putting it narrowly, what I am suggesting to you Mrs. Woodruff is that when Dr.
Shipman spoke of the cause of death he was talking in general terms about old age,
about your mother's general complaint offeeling unwell, but did not specify either
chest pain or indigestion ?
A. Well, he certainly mentioned to us chest pain or indigestion. That is what she, she
wasn'tfeeling well and he just said "Maybe chest pain, maybe indigestion," with a
gesture like that.
In the response the witness uses discourse marker well, which signals disagreement.
The second most common type of question in the cross-examination is yes/no
questions. Gibbons distinguishes various types of such questions and comments on their
effect in a testimony:
Type Example Function
Polar (yes/no question) Did you actually see him hit the ground?
The
information is
given in the
question, but it
is made overtly
open to
challenge
40
Either/or questions with a
vacant slot
Did they tell you at that particular meeting or at some
other time?
There is given
material, but
the open slot
usually
provides the
opportunity to
supply new
specified
information
Table 7. Yes/no Questions: Polar and Either/or Questions
Thus, formally the questions might be the same, but their purpose differs depending on the
specific type of the question. In the cross-examination, a few questions expect a more
elaborated answer:
Q. I don't want to embarrass you, Mrs. Woodruff, but was that in the event that there
might be a claim of some sort or another upon you professionally?
A. It was a worry that if anything happened with the practice the property was in our
joint names. It was concerned with my practice and my concerns about that aspect.
That was the reason for it. I think a lot of lawyers do the same.
The text contains a small number of polar questions, which expect only yes or no as the
answer:
Q. Did you say calcium supplement?
A. Yes.
Some of the questions that can be answered yes or no have a form of indirect question. There
are only two either/or questions in the cross-examination. The following example is one of
them:
Q. Then maybe I have misunderstood. Were you telling the Court, as you have
demonstrated now, that that was his interpretation or simply that was what your
41
mother said to Dr. Shipman on the previous afternoon ?
A. I don't know. I think it was Dr. Shipman's interpretation. I can't say. I think it was
Dr. Shipman's interpretation.
Many of the indirect questions in the text contain the phrases Is it correct that.... ? or would
you accept... ?:
Q. Would you accept that there is nothing in the 1998 diary where your mother has
recorded at any time staying with you ?
A. Could I have a look at the diary because I think there is probably something there.
Gibbons categorizes these types of indirect questions as agreement and memory
statements:
Agreement statements
Do you agree that you told us about that time you were at
C railway station?
Memory statements
Are you aware that your daughter says that she saw the
doctorfour times...in 1993?
Table 8. Agreement and Memory Statements
These questions are very difficult to deny since they often use the witness's own words.
There are eight wh-questions in the text. In this type of questions, 'substantial
information can be assumed, but there is some freedom in the information given' (Gibbons
2003:103). These questions form only 6% of all the questions used. That is a very small
proportion and it shows that Nicola Davies prevents Angela Woodruff from having 'freedom'
in her replies. The following question is an example of a wh-question:
Q. What exactly does restructuring mean ?
A. My mum's will in 1955 was made when I was I suppose ** and it referred to my
father and instead of referring to me by name itjust said "to such a children as"
because she thought she might have more children presumably, and she said to me,
42
"Please could you redraw my will taking yourfather out," because she didn't want,
you know, him to be mentioned. So that's what I did, that's all I did.
In the utterance above, the witness is encouraged to provide a more complex answer. Gibbons
states that some wh-questions contain 'embedded information', as in the following example:
Q. And in the course of a year, after perhaps the boys had got a bit older when they
may not have needed quite so much looking after in the school holidays, how often
would she have stayed with you when the boys were in their teenage years or at
University?
A. She always came at Christmas and New Year, she would come at Easter,
sometimes May Bank Holiday, usually in August and sometimes in October.
In such a case 'there is a pre-supposed information [...] the response is restricted to a
specified item of information' (Gibbons 2003: 104).
As far as tag questions are concerned, they are not very frequent in the text. Most of
the cross-examination questions marked as tag questions are described by Gibbons (2003:
102) as 'statements with reverse polarity modal verb tag', for instance You 're making this all
up, aren'tyou? Gibbons suggests that 'this form places strong pressure for agreement' (2003:
102). The following tag question is from the beginning of the cross-examination:
Q. And you have given to the police various diaries of hers covering the years
certainly 1995 up to 1998, have you not?
A. Yes.
According to Gibbons's division of question types, statements followed by an 'agreement
tag' are also classified as tag questions. The author offers division into negative and positive
agreement tags:
43
Question type Example
Statements with positive agreement tags It is the name of a disease. Would you accept that?
Statements with negative agreement tags
...you saw the defendant and he came up to you and
he held his fists up to you and said things that weren't
very nice and you said things back to him and did
exactly what he did. Isn't that right?
Table 9. Agreement Tags
If the questions were divided simply into open (wh-questions) and closed questions (all the
other types), then open questions would make only 19%.
The least frequent question type is non-sentence questions, which usually consist of a
very small number of words and do not form a sentence. The label, 'non-sentence questions'
seems to be rather problematic to define. Thus it is worth looking at different naming for the
questions in this group. The category called 'non-sentence questions' would correspond to
Barbora Budikova's 'other structures functioning as "questions'" (2004: 228). Budíková
mentions several types of these questions: prompts, elliptedforms, incomplete sentences,
single words and echo questions. In the following example the expression right is used as a
prompt to encourage the witness to continue:
Q. A grant of probate was obtained in respect of his estate which was done on the
27th June 1996?
A. I can't remember the date but....
Q. Right?
A. It sounds about right, I can't....
In another instance, a single word question is employed to show surprise and disagreement:
A. / don't think there is any significance in that at all.
44
Q. Sorry?
A. I don't think there is any significance in that at all. She came to stay with us in
April.
Budíková comments on function of a phrase similar to sorry, and that is the phrase excuse
me in cross-examination. The author states that the phrase 'is used in place of question, for
example to show disbelief, to interrupt an eloquent witness, to invite a repetition/reformulation,
or to indicate that the witness is not telling the truth' (2004: 228).
Ellipted forms can have the same function as a yes/no or wh-question:
Q. And something else?
A. Some sleeping tablets I think.
The question above relates to one of the previous questions: Can I simply ask you this, do you
know following your husband's carrying out of that task whether hefound any medication at
your mother's house?
To conclude, the findings have shown that the defence lawyer in the examination of
Angela Woodruff used mainly closed questions, which limit the witness's description of the
events. Many of the questions used by the counsel are declarative or yes-no questions. These
types of questions are often coercive, though some of the yes-no questions require a more
complex answer. The quantitative analysis has confirmed that studying only the form of the
question might not be sufficient and that qualitative analysis is necessary for understanding
the function of various question types.
Again, the types of questions from the cross-examination are compared with the
questions in the examination-in-chief. The aim is to explore the different questions strategies.
The question types in examination-in-chief are summarized in table 10:
45
Table 10: Question Types in Examination-in-chief
Number Percentage
wh-questions 12 5%
indirect questions and requests 17 8%
yes/no questions 132 59%
declarative questions 23 10%
tag questions 8 4%
non-sentence questions 30 14%
Table 10. Question Types in Examination-in-chief
The proportions of particular question types are compared in the graph:
• Cross-examination
Examination-in-chief
Graph 2. Distribution of Various Question Types in Cross-examination and Examination-in-
chief
Apparently, the biggest difference is between the numbers of yes/no questions. As it has been
mentioned before, the examination-in-chief consists of many yes/no questions dealing with
personal details. These questions are answered by simple yes or no. In the examination-inchief,
there are also several other questions requiring just a very short answer. Many of these
questions contain a great deal of information:
46
Q. And did you learn from him that he was in possession of a new Will, or what
purported to be a new Will, dated the 9th June of 1998 and a covering letter dated the
22nd June 1998, and a letter signed by somebody Smith dated the 28th June of 1998?
A. Yes.
This shows that the prosecution lawyer produces his prepared questions and merely asks the
witness for brief confirmation. However, several yes/no questions in the examination-in-chief
expect a more complex reply.
Q. Was anything said about the issuing of a death certificate?
A. Dr. Shipman said to me that the death certificate would be available at his surgery
thefollowing day and I arranged to go and collect it.
In the example above, more information is expected to be given in case the answer is yes.
The number of non-sentence answers in the examination-in-chief is noticeably higher
than in the cross-examination. As it has been suggested, the examination-in-chief contains
many yes/no questions asking about personal details. There are several sequences of yes/no
questions followed by non-sentence questions. The counsel uses ellipsis and omits certain
sentence parts:
Q. If at any stage you would like a break, it will be no problem. Is yourfull name
Angela Woodruff?
A. It is.
Q. And Mrs. Woodruff, your occupation please and profession ?
A. I am a lawyer.
Q. And a solicitor by training and qualifications ?
A. Yes I am.
47
The sequence has been taken from the very beginning of the examination. Yes/no questions
and non-sentence questions are constantly used throughout the interview. However, towards
the end of the examination, the number of declarative and tag questions grows. That suggests
lawyer's growing attempt to control the examination.
In comparison to the cross-examination, there are very few declarative questions in
the examination-in-chief. The declarative questions mostly appear in the last third of the
interview and sometimes come in longer sequences:
Q. I am sorry, that was when in fact you saw him?
A. That was on the 31st July. Actually I reported it earlier.
Q. He came to see you then?
A. Yes.
Q. The 24th in fact you reported it?
A. That sounds more like it.
Q. But you saw him on the 31st?
A. Yes. I remember I saw him the day before my mum's body was exhumed, yes.
Mr. Henriques expresses a higher degree of politeness in his indirect questions than Ms
Davies. For instance, in the following example, the expression dare I... is employed:
Q. Dare I ask you which year it was of your University reunion that you were
attending?
A. Well, it was ** years. It was 19661 graduated.
However, it is important to stress that the number of indirect questions is bigger in the cross-
examination.
48
The amount of tag questions in the examination-in-chief is lower than in the crossexamination,
which, together with a lower number of declarative questions, suggests that the
prosecution counsel does not use as many coercive question forms as the defence counsel.
The comparison of question forms in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination
brings several interesting findings. Like in the cross-examination, closed questions are much
more frequent than open questions. Yes/no questions make 59% of all the question types used
in the examination-in-chief. Thus they are more frequent (by 27%) than in the crossexamination.
The most common question type in the cross-examination is declarative
questions. The difference between the distributions of this type of question in the two
examinations is 22%. Put simply, the quantitative analysis shows that in the crossexamination,
the counsel uses more coercive questions than the counsel in the examinationin-chief.
It is essential to bear in mind that the structure of the two examinations is different
since the examination-in-chief includes a number of question-answer turns in which personal
details are discussed. As far as these questions are concerned, they do not have much of
pragmatic purpose. It is also important to mention that those turns in which numbers of
documents are dealt with, are not included in the analysis since the only content of these turns
is orientation in the evidence.
3.4. Witness's Responses
Turn-taking is a process of questions and answers. They relate to each other and
influence each other. That is the reason why the witness's responses were analyzed too. The
responses were divided into three groups according to their length since the questioner's
questions expect a certain amount of information and it is useful to study the responses in
relation to the question types. However, the response analysis in the paper is limited mainly
49
to quantitative analysis and much more space is devoted to the questions. It would probably
be beneficial to study the responses in a greater detail.
In order to understand the turn-taking process in the selected text, it is useful to look
at the answerer's responses. The main focus of this chapter is to examine the answers and
relate them to various question types discussed in the previous chapter. That will, together
with the discussion over the results in chapter 3.3., form the qualitative part of the analysis.
3.4.1. Context
It is useful to take into account the witness's position in the context of the trial before
the analysis itself. Angela Woodruff was a prosecution witness. She was convinced that Dr.
Shipman had killed her mother and forged her mother's will. Thus, it is clear that the trial
must have been very emotional for her. The following part of the cross-examination transcript
shows that the emotions played role in the examination:
Q. Did you find any otherform of medication at your mother's house?
A. I haven't looked at the medication in my mother's house. I only emptied her
handbag. I was too upset to go through my mum's things.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Just sit down for a second?
A. I didn't go through my mother's things. It was too upsetting.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Mrs. Woodruffdo sit down. Take as long as you like to
recover your composure. Please don't get up until you are ready to continue. (Short
pause) Are you all right?
A. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Are you sure? Yes, Miss Davies.
50
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is that Angela Woodruff was
not a typical lay witness since she is a lawyer herself. Although she is not a criminal lawyer,
it can be presumed that she would be familiar with lawyers' reasoning and strategies and thus
she can be a 'stronger' opponent in the trial.
3.4.2. Analysis
First, the length of the witness's answers is discussed. The answers have been divided into:
• One-word answers (i.e. yes answers)
• Short answers (up to ten words)
• Longer answers (more than 10 words)
The following chart and graph count and compare the length of Angela Woodruffs answers:
Number
One-word answers 45
Short answers 33
Long answers 42
Table 11. Length ofAnswers
Responses
• Number
One-word answers Shortanswers Longanswers
Graph 3. Distribution of Witness's Responses
51
3.4.2.1. One-word answers
There are many one-word responses in the transcript. Sometimes there are long
questions followed by a one-word yes answers:
Q. May I then please move to the next morning when you saw the doctor at his
surgery. There was then a more extensive conversation about your mother and her
death. The doctor, as you have told us, mentioned that he had called to see your
mother at her home that morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Your memory is that although you cannot be exact about time, he told you that he
called to see your mother before surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. And similarly you remember that he mentioned that your mother's home was on his
way to surgery?
A. Yes.
These questions seek for confirmation. Moreover, these questions are what Gibbons (2003:
105) classifies as 'projected statement'. Projected statements often contain phrases such as
'You were saying...' and according to Gibbons, they 'quote back the witness's meaning' and
they are 'difficult to deny convincingly'. It is not surprising that the one-word answers are
always yes answers. In case the witness disagrees and answers no, she usually tends to
provide more information as explanation.
3.4.2.2. Short Answers
Some of the short answers are confirming answers with several added words. The
added words do not usually provide any additional information:
52
Q. Yourfather-in-law died on the 27th April of 1996?
A. Yes that's right, yes.
Another type of short answers specifies or changes the information given in the answer:
Q. I will tell you exactly. You have suggested to the Court this morning that there may
have been mention of chest pains and indigestion?
A. Dr. Shipman mentioned that, yes.
In some of the short answers, Angela Woodruff expresses doubt over the question:
Q. Can I suggest that vague may not indeed be an inaccurate description of what he
was saying, because he didn't identify on your mother's part a specific complaint the
previous day, simply that she was complaining of being unwell?
A. Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making.
In some cases the witness informs the questioner that she cannot remember exactly and thus
cannot provide an exact answer:
Q. Are you able to recall, Mrs. Woodruff, when you found those capsules in your
mother's handbag?
A. No, I am not able to recall. No I am not.
3.4.2.3. Long Answers
Long answers are used when the witness wants to specify some information:
Q. And you learnt either then or the next day that he had seen your mother on the
morning of her death?
A. I learned in the telephone call and he confirmed it the next day.
53
In this example, the question was a declarative one. In the next example, the witness does not
completely agree with the information provided in the question and feels the need to correct
it:
Q. Do you also recall that although he put it in those terms, it was not strictly
speaking necessary, he offered you a postmortem had you wishedfor one?
A. He didn't offer me a postmortem. I have told you what happened, the telephone
conversation. He didn't offer me a postmortem. He just said it is not strictly speaking
necessary.
As in case of short answers, the witness often explains that she was too upset to
remember details:
Q. Let me move away from the word "offer." I cannot give you the precise words after
that length of time, Mrs. Woodruff, but the gist of what was being said to you by Dr.
Shipman was that if you thought a postmortem was necessary you could have one?
A. I have to say I didn 'tfeel in control at the time. I was very upset. I can't really
say that.
Logically, longer replies are used to answer wh-questions. Then the answers tend to
be rather long:
Q. What exactly does restructuring mean ?
A. My mum's will in 1955 was made when I was I suppose ** and it referred to my
father and instead of referring to me by name itjust said "to such a children as"
because she thought she might have more children presumably, and she said to me,
"Please could you redraw my will taking yourfather out," because she didn't want,
you know, him to be mentioned. So that's what I did, that's all I did.
54
3.4.2.4. Witness's Strategies
Angela Woodruff often mentions that she does not recall a particular event, as in:
Q. And did she tell you that she went into Dr. Shipman's surgery or consulting room
and there was a lady who, I couldn't give you the exact words as she described the
lady but an elderly lady, something of that sort?
A. I can't remember what she said. There was a lady in there. I can't remember how
she described her. I was a little upset at the time.
Janney (2002: 468-71) mentions various strategies of vague answers in court (for instance
generalizations). It does not seem that the witness is using any if these vague answers. The
witness, however, often questions the relevance or purpose of the question:
Q. Forgive me, Mrs. Woodruff, that wasn't the point I was making. What I was
attempting to suggest was that in earlier years if she was going to you or
contemplating going to you she would make an entry in the diary, whereas in the year
1998 there does not appear to be a specific entry in her diary?
A. I don't think there is any significance in that at all.
Q. Sorry?
A. I don't think there is any significance in that at all. She came to stay with us in
April.
In this excerpt, the witness repeatedly doubts the relevance of the question. This is quite an
unusual phenomenon since the witness is usually 'limited to the role of providing
confirmatory responses, typically in the form of single-word affirmative "yes"' (Cotterill
2004:514).
55
Because of the conversational nature of witness examination, overlapping is common
and witnesses sometimes ask questions, for example when they ask the counsel to clarify
their question:
Q. Could you help please, Mrs. Woodruff, what is the nature of your practice?
A. Do you mean my particular practice?
Thus, the turn-taking process might not be necessarily limited to the neat question-answer
schema, but the witness is not expected to comment on the relevance of the questioner's
utterances. As it has been mentioned before, Angela Woodruff is a lawyer herself and that
can be a cause of her more assertive approach to the examination. In the next turn, Ms.
Davies is rather evasive and does not explain why her question was significant:
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, can I leave the issue of significance to one side please. As a
matter offact it is correct, is it not, that in 1998 your mother does not record in her
diary either "To Angela's," or "Possibly to Angela's?"
A. It is a matter offact that she came to stay with us two weeks at Easter in April
1998.
The witness is resistant and does not confirm the information included in the question. She
also paraphrases the lawyer's wording it is a matter offact.
Long answers are sometimes used when a short negative response might be expected:
Q. Did you find any otherform of medication at your mother's house?
A. I haven't looked at the medication in my mother's house. I only emptied her
handbag. I was too upset to go through my mum's things.
To conclude, the witness uses mainly single-word answers. The single-word answers
are always yes answers, because when the witness disagrees, she feels the need to add more
56
information or explanation. One-word responses usually answer declarative questions, which
often have a form of projected statement. Short answers (up to ten words) might be
confirmative answers and the added words do not carry any significant information. They can
also include information aimed to specify the presupposition in the question. In the selected
text, the witness uses short and longer answers when she is not sure about the exact answer or
when she doubts the purpose of the question. Long replies also answer wh-questions which
require a more detailed or explanative reply. The wording of Angela Woodruffs answers
does not seem 'evasive' or 'nonresponsive', however, in a few instances she doubts the
significance of a question and that is not very typical for a lay witness.
3.5. Pragmatic Aspects
This chapter focuses on other pragmatic strategies used by the lawyer in the selected
text. The chapter mainly draws from Gibbons's text on interaction and power in court (2003:
74-124). Gibbons says:
Question form is not by any means the only technique used by lawyers or police
officers to construct and affirm their version of events. A range of other devices can
be used in such a way that one particular interpretation emerges more powerfully.
This may not be based purely on grammar and intonation, like questioning, but
instead may use the whole range of linkages between elements of the communication
process and the social context - the phenomenon often referred to in linguistics as
pragmatics (2003: 112).
The following aspects are going to be discussed: status reduction, modality, vocabulary
choice, reformulation, interruption.
As far as witness's status is concerned, the opposing lawyer might attempt to reduce
the witness's status by doubting the credibility of his or her statement. In the following
57
extract, the defence lawyer expresses sympathy with the witness, but in fact, she doubts the
witness's memory and account of the events:
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, I am sure no-one in this Court will have any difficulty whatsoever
understanding if there are difficulties remembering precisely what occurred in
either of those conversations. Can I deal please with simply one other aspect of the
conversation between yourself and Dr. Shipman on the morning after your mother's
death. Insofar as there was a cause of your mother's death, you have told the Court
that Dr. Shipman was explaining that people of a certain age can die, actually over a
short period, of old age?
A. Yes.
The lawyer also asks the witness if she is sure about what she has just said:
Q. And she identified the document she was asked to witness as being a last Will and
Testament?
A. No she didn't. She didn't say it was a Will.
Q. What did she say it was?
A. She just said a document.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. I think so.
In this case, the counsel doubts the witness's certainty in the examination.
The next area of interest is the use of modality. According to Gibbons, when talking
about modality, it is necessary to consider two variables; power and politeness. The author
says that sometimes the institutional power may 'override' politeness, however, the notion of
politeness is still highly important. Gibbons claims:
58
[...] even when the power relationship is such that one party expects compliance,
her/his questions may be expressed in a less demanding way "could you tell me if..."
In this case the pressure on the answerer to provide information is masked, or perhaps
mitigated, by politeness in the language' (2003: 99).
In the selected text the questioner often uses modals to 'ask the witness for permission' to
change the topic.
Modal verb Example from the text
Would
Mrs. Woodruff, what I would like to do is go back please
to the start ofyour evidence...
May
May I then please move to the next morning when you
saw...
Can Can I suggest to you...
Table 12. Modal Verbs: Changing the Topic
In witness examination the questioner is in charge of topic raising and of the turn-taking
process. Thus, the questioner does not in fact need the answerer's permission to ask questions
or commence a certain topic. The questioner's pressure is mitigated by the use of modals.
When asking for the permission to change the topic, the questioner can use other means of
expressing politeness, such as in this example from the text:
Q. Let me move awayfrom the word "offer." I cannot give you the precise words after
that length of time, Mrs. Woodruff, but the gist of what was being said to you by Dr.
Shipman was that if you thought a postmortem was necessary you could have one?
Modal verbs are also used to ask the answerer to reply or to do something. In such
cases the verb could is very frequent.
Modal verb Example from the text
would
Would you have a look at this
document please?
Could
Could you help us please, Mrs.
Woodruff, what is the nature ofyour
practice?
Table 13. Modal Verbs: Requestfor Witness
59
The modal form 'would' is also used when the witness is asked to confirm certain
information:
Q. Would you accept that there is nothing in the 1998 diary where your mother has recorded
at any time staying with you ?
In this case, the pressure for agreement is mitigated by the modal form 'would'.
In most questions modals express request or request for permission and they form a
substantial number of indirect questions. Sometimes a modal might be used for example to ask about
ability:
Q, Are you able to recall, Mrs. Woodruff, when you found those capsules in your mother's
handbag?
In some turns a modal verb can express possibility:
Q. Then maybe I have misunderstood. Were you telling the Court, as you have demonstrated
now, that that was his interpretation or simply that was what your mother said to Dr.
Shipman on the previous afternoon?
Lexical choice is a very important phenomenon in the genre of court discourse. Sometimes
the participants in the examination discuss the role of a certain expression:
Q. Do you also recall that although he put it in those terms, it was not strictly
speaking necessary, he offered you a postmortem had you wishedfor one?
A. He didn't offer me a postmortem. I have told you what happened, the telephone
conversation. He didn't offer me a postmortem. He just said it is not strictly speaking
necessary.
Q. And those are the terms he used "not strictly speaking?"
A. Yes.
Q. Let me move awayfrom the word "offer." I cannot give you the precise words after
60
that length of time, Mrs. Woodruff, but the gist of what was being said to you by Dr.
Shipman was that if you thought a postmortem was necessary you could have one?
A. I have to say I didn'tfeel in control at the time. I was very upset. I can't really say
that.
In the above turn-taking process the participants are in fact trying to present the details of the
secondary reality, that is the reality of the events discussed. They are insisting on specific
details of the situation and the exact formulation plays important role in the reconstruction of
the events and the versions presented by the prosecution and defence.
Lawyers may use reformulation to 'construct a different version from that of the
witness' (Gibbons 2003: 121). The following example shows how the lawyer attempts to put
across her version of events.
Q. I will tell you exactly. You have suggested to the Court this morning that there may
have been mention of chest pains and indigestion?
A. Dr. Shipman mentioned that, yes.
Q. Putting it narrowly, what I am suggesting to you Mrs. Woodruff is that when Dr.
Shipman spoke of the cause of death he was talking in general terms about old age,
about your mother's general complaint offeeling unwell, but did not specify either
chest pain or indigestion?
A. Well, he certainly mentioned to us chest pain or indigestion. That is what she, she
wasn'tfeeling well and he just said "Maybe chest pain, maybe indigestion," with a
gesture like that.
The last topic discussed is interruption in a testimony. It is common for the judge or
opposing lawyer to interrupt the examination in case they object to the question asked. This
61
happens a few times in the selected cross-examination. In one case the judge intervenes when
Mrs. Woodruffs answer is hardly audible:
Q. Do you know what type of medication hefound?
A. I know there was some peppermint oil tablets which my mum tookfor her digestion
and I think there was some calcium supplement and I think there were some sleeping
tablets.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: I am sorry but your voice is perhaps understandably going
away somewhat. Do you think—
A. Some peppermint oil tablets.
'In hostile cross-examination it is common for counsel to not permit the witness finish
what s/he is saying, particularly if it contradicts some element of the "story" that counsel is
trying to construct' (Gibbons 2003: 125). In the selected text, there is not much interruption
from the side of the lawyer. But there is one instance of interruption by the witness, when the
witness corrects the information given by the lawyer.
MISS DAVIES: Can I move on then please, Mrs. Woodruff. In respect of the estate of
yourfather-in-law the Will and Testament in respect of which yourself and your
husband werejoint executors provided that, savefor 2 sums in the order of £25,000
each to a Hospice Trust and I believe to a health authority or hospitalfund, the
remainder—
A. It was to the church actually.
The fact that the witness actually interrupts/corrects the lawyer shows how assertive the
witness is.
62
Apart from the coercive questioning, counsels can use other devices to control the
testimony. In the selected text, the counsel attempts to doubt credibility of witness's
statement by doubting the witness's ability to remember the event. The counsel makes use of
modal verbs to sound more polite. Modals are used mainly when changing the topic of the
questioning and asking the witness to provide information. The most frequently used modals
are would, can, could and may. Reformulation or repetition are other pragmatic devices used
by lawyers, however, these are not frequent in the selected cross-examination. In fact, there is
only one instance of reformulation in the text. The examination is not very rich in
interruptions either; in one case it is the witness who interrupts.
63
4. Conclusion
The paper outlines the characteristics of legal language, with focus on courtroom
discourse. The thesis describes theoretical information about courtroom proceedings and the
genre of witness examination. These chapters are important for understanding the
characteristics of a courtroom environment. Special attention is paid to the question of power
in courtroom. The paper looks at theory related to storytelling in court and the process of
turn-taking. The emphasis has been put on the linguistic strategies that lawyers use to control
witness examination. The Theoretical Part is aimed to provide enough theoretical background
for the analysis itself.
The thesis of the paper is that lawyers tend to control the power in witness examination
with help of linguistic devices. The aim of the paper is to confirm the thesis and explore
which linguistic strategies are used by lawyers during questioning. The centre focus of the
thesis is on turn-taking and lawyers' questions, however, several other pragmatic devices
have been taken into consideration.
The overall findings have showed that in the selected text the counsel utters more words
than the witness. The counsel's contribution in the cross-examination forms 70% of all the
words. The results have been compared to the examination-in-chief and the analysis has
showed that the counsel's contribution is still considerably high and makes 66% of the
examination.
The main body of the Practical Part deals with analysis of questions and answers in the
selected text. Questions have been divided into six groups; wh-questions, indirect questions,
yes/no questions, declarative questions, tag and non-sentence questions. According to the
results of the research, most of the questions asked by the opposing lawyer are closed
64
questions, declarative questions in particular. Declarative questions form almost a half of all
the question types. Declarative questions do not have a question word order and they expect
confirmation as a response. Again, the results have been contrasted with the question types in
the examination-in-chief, where the most common question type is yes/no questions. Yes/no
questions are closed questions too, but they are less coercive than declarative questions and
they sometimes require a longer response. The cross-examination also contains many more
tag questions, which are aimed to obtain confirmation from the answerer.
The next chapter has explored the nature of the witness's responses. The findings have
revealed that the biggest number of answers was made by single-word replies. The
connection between the questions and responses has been studied and the results have
showed that various question types usually serve their aim; for instance declarative questions
are mostly answered by a single-word response or that wh-questions are followed by a rather
long answer.
Apart from types of questions used by the counsel, other pragmatic aspects have been
discussed - namely doubting witness's credibility, use of modal verbs, lexical choice,
reformulation and interruption. There is an example in the text showing how the counsel
doubts witness's memory. As far as modal verbs are concerned, the most frequent modals in
the testimony are would, may, can and could. They are mainly used when the questioner
wishes to change the topic and asks for the witness's 'permission', or wishes the witness to
answer questions. The latter request is expressed by indirect questions. The text includes
examples where a specific formulation or expression was the main issue of concern. The
cross-examination contains common interruptions by the other lawyer or judge. In course of
the counsel-witness dialogue, there are just few interruptions, one of them from the side of
the witness, who corrects the information given by the counsel.
65
There are several other findings that have arisen from the research. It might be
problematic to select appropriate question types for the analysis and it is definitely useful to
complement quantitative analysis with a qualitative analysis, which explains the nature of the
results. Angela Woodruff was not a typical lay witness since she is a lawyer by profession.
When comparing the questions in the cross-examination and the examination-in-chief, one
should bear in mind that the examination-in-chief might contain the introductory sequence of
questions related to the witness's personal details.
It is worth mentioning that there is much room for further research, which might, for
instance, focus on a particular question type and explore its functions within the area of
courtroom discourse in a greater detail.
66
5. Bibliography
Aldridge, Michelle and Luchjenbroers, June (2007) 'Linguistic Manipulations in Legal
Discourse: Framing questions and "smuggling" information'. The International
Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14.1: 85-107.
Bhatia, Vijay (1994) 'Cognitive Structuring in Legislative Provisions'. In Gibbons, John (ed.)
Language and the Law. Harlow: Longman Group, 136-55.
Budíková, Barbora (2004) The Dynamics of Courtroom Interaction in English. A
Sociolinguistic Study of O.J. Simpson's Civil Case. Doctoral dissertation. Brno:
Masaryk University.
Cotterill, Janet (2004) 'Collocation, Connotation, and Courtroom Semantics: Lawyers'
Control of Witness Testimony through Lexical Negotiation'. In Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford UP.
Cotterill, Janet (2002) '"Just One More Time"...: Aspects of Intertextuality in the Trials of O.
J. Simpson'. In Cotterill, Janet (ed.) Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cotterill, Janet (2003) Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J.
Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, Malcolm and Johnson, Alison (2007) An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics.
London: Routledge.
Danet, Brenda (1980) '"Baby" or "fetus"? Language and the construction of reality in a
manslaughter trial'. Semiotica 32: 187-219.
Gibbons, John (2003) Forensic Linguistics. An Introduction to Language in the Justice
System. Oxford: Blackwell.
67
Gibbons, John (1994) 'Introduction: Language Constructing Law'. In Gibbons, John
(ed.) Language and the Law. Ed. by J. Gibbons. Harlow: Longman Group.
Gibbons, John (2004) 'Language and the Law'. In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Goodrich, Peter (1990) Languages of Law: from Logics of Memory to Nomadic Law.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Greenbaum, Sidney (1996) The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: OUP, 46-49.
Heffer, Chris (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay
Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 65-152.
Janney, Richard W. (2002) 'Cotext as Context: Vague Answers in Court'. Language and
Communication No. 22, 457-75.
Johnson, Alison (2002) 'So..?: Pragmatic Implications of So-prefaced Questions in Formal
Police Interviews'. In Cotterill, Janet (ed.) Language in the Legal Process.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lakoff, George (1990) 'Life and Language in Court'. In Language and Institutions, 85-
106.
Maley, Yon (1994) 'The Language of the Law'. In Gibbons, John (ed.) Language and the
Law. London: Longman, 11-31.
Mattilla, Heiki E. S. (2006) 'Characteristics of Legal Language'. In Comparative Legal
Linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
O'Barr, William M . (1982) Linguistic Evidence: Language Power and Strategy in the
Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Russell, Sonia (2002) '"Three's a Crowd": Shifting Dynamics in the Interpreted Interview'.
68
In Cotterill, Janet (ed.) Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 11-125.
Schane, Sanford (2006) 'Ambiguity in Language and Misunderstanding in Law'. In
Language and the Law. London and New York: Continuum.
Solan, Lawrence M . (1993) 'Testimony and the Act of Speech'. In The Language ofJudges.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tkacukovä, Tatiana (2010) 'Representing Oneself. Cross-examination Questioning: Lay
People as Cross-examiners'. In Coulthard, Malcolm and Alison Johnson (eds.) The
Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge, 333-47.
Electronic Sources:
BBC News, 13 January 2004. Harold Shipman: the Killer Doctor. BBC News [online].
[Accessed on 14 March 2010] Available from:
<http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/uk/3391897.stm>.
BBC News, 25 August 2005. Shipman Suicide Not Preventable. BBC News [online].
[Accessed on 13 March 2010] Available from:
<http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/uk/4182730.stm>.
BBC News, 4 February 2000. Walker, Andrew. Newsmaker: Angela Woodruff. BBC News
[online]. [Accessed 14 March 2010] Available from:
<http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/the_shipman_murders/news_and_reacti
on/631101.stm>.
Harold Shipman: The Trial. Crime and Investigation Network [online]. [Accessed on 13
69
March] Available from: <http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/harold-
shipman/trial.html>.
The Shipman Inquiry. (2001) Background to the Inquiry. The Shipman Inquiry [online].
[Accessed 14 March 2010] Available from: <http://www.the-shipman-
inquiry.org.uk/backgroundinfo.asp>.
The Shipman Inquiry. (2001) The First Report: Kathleen Grundy. The Shipman Inquiry
[online]. [Accessed 14 March 2010] Available from: <http://www.the-shipman-
inquiry.org.uk/case_decision.asp?fn=01&id=DG>.
The Shipman Inquiry. (2001) Transcript for Trial Day 4. The Shipman Inquiry
online]. [Accessed 14 March 2010] Available from: <http://www.the-shipman-
inquiry.org.uk/trialday.asp?Day=4>.
70
6. Appendices
6.1. Appendix 1: Transcript of Cross-examination
Cross-examined by MISS DAVIES
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, what I would like to do is go back please to the start of your evidence and such memory as
you have of the conversation with Dr. Shipman on the afternoon of the 24th June when you learnt of the death
of your mother. You told the Court this morning that your memory of that conversation is hazy because you
were very very upset. Simply one aspect of that conversation, you spoke, indeed you have told the Court that Dr.
Shipman said that he had seen your mother recently, that is right is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And in particular he had seen your mother the previous afternoon when she had attended at his surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. When she was complaining of feeling unwell?
A. He didn't tell me that on the telephone.
Q. That was the next morning?
A. Yes.
Q. And you learnt either then or the next day that he had seen your mother on the morning of her death?
A. I learned in the telephone call and he confirmed it the next day.
Q. During the course of that telephone call he told you that he would be willing to write a death certificate for
your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. There was a conversation, if one can call it that, regarding a postmortem?
A. I asked if a postmortem was necessary.
Q. And your evidence to the Court this morning was that Dr. Shipman said it wasn't strictly speaking necessary?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you also recall that although he put it in those terms, it was not strictly speaking necessary, he offered you
a postmortem had you wished for one?
A. He didn't offer me a postmortem. I have told you what happened, the telephone conversation. He didn't offer
me a postmortem. He just said it is not strictly speaking necessary.
Q. And those are the terms he used "not strictly speaking?"
A. Yes.
Q. Let me move away from the word "offer." I cannot give you the precise words after that length of time, Mrs.
Woodruff, but the gist of what was being said to you by Dr. Shipman was that if you thought a postmortem was
necessary you could have one?
A. I have to say I didn't feel in control at the time. I was very upset. I can't really say that.
Q. May I then please move to the next morning when you saw the doctor at his surgery. There was then a more
extensive conversation about your mother and her death. The doctor, as you have told us, mentioned that he had
called to see your mother at her home that morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Your memory is that although you cannot be exact about time, he told you that he called to see your mother
71
before surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. And similarly you remember that he mentioned that your mother's home was on his way to surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. Again I cannot give the exact words, Mrs. Woodruff, what I am going to suggest that is the gist of the
conversation. But when Dr. Shipman told you that your mother's home was on his way to surgery he was not
suggesting he went past your mother's home every single day, it was one of a number of ways he could get from
his own home to his surgery?
A. I can't say. He just said, "I pass there every day." My mother had just died. I can't comment.
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, I am sure no-one in this Court will have any difficulty whatsoever understanding if there are
difficulties remembering precisely what occurred in either of those conversations. Can I deal please with simply
one other aspect of the conversation between yourself and Dr. Shipman on the morning after your mother's
death. Insofar as there was a cause of your mother's death, you have told the Court that Dr. Shipman was
explaining that people of a certain age can die, actually over a short period, of old age?
A. Yes.
Q. And he told you that on the previous day when he had seen your mother in the surgery she was complaining
of being unwell?
A. Yes.
Q. Can I suggest to you, because you told the Court this morning that he was vague about it, wasn't he?
A. Yes. He didn't, he was vague in that he did not specifically say my mother had died of old age.
Q. Can I suggest that vague may not indeed be an inaccurate description of what he was saying, because he
didn't identify on your mother's part a specific complaint the previous day, simply that she was complaining of
being unwell?
A. Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making.
Q. I will tell you exactly. You have suggested to the Court this morning that there may have been mention of
chest pains and indigestion?
A. Dr. Shipman mentioned that, yes.
Q. Putting it narrowly, what I am suggesting to you Mrs. Woodruff is that when Dr. Shipman spoke of the cause
of death he was talking in general terms about old age, about your mother's general complaint of feeling unwell,
but did not specify either chest pain or indigestion?
A. Well, he certainly mentioned to us chest pain or indigestion. That is what she, she wasn't feeling well and he
just said "Maybe chest pain, maybe indigestion," with a gesture like that.
Q. Then maybe I have misunderstood. Were you telling the Court, as you have demonstrated now, that that was
his interpretation or simply that was what your mother said to Dr. Shipman on the previous afternoon?
A. I don't know. I think it was Dr. Shipman's interpretation. I can't say. I think it was Dr. Shipman's
interpretation.
Q. Very well. Can I move now please to a wholly separate point. Before lunch you told the Court something of
your mother, how she would visit your home certainly from a time that your sons were born and in the years that
followed thereafter. She would visit your home in *************. Would she also on occasions go on holiday
with you?
A. Very rarely. We took her to France as I mentioned earlier but not normally.
Q. You have also told the Court that your mother was a meticulous lady, everything had to be just so?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have given to the police various diaries of hers covering the years certainly 1995 up to 1998, have
you not?
A. Yes.
72
Q. We have looked at those diaries, Mrs. Woodruff, and certainly in the years, in fact going back to 1993, one
can see entries in those diaries, by all means look at any of them, where there will be an entry "To Angela's," or
"Possibly to Angela's?"
A. Yes.
Q. That would be in keeping with your mother's character, would it?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the course of a year, after perhaps the boys had got a bit older when they may not have needed quite
so much looking after in the school holidays, how often would she have stayed with you when the boys were in
their teenage years or at University?
A. She always came at Christmas and New Year, she would come at Easter, sometimes May Bank Holiday,
usually in August and sometimes in October.
Q. Insofar as the year 1998 is concerned, could you help the Court please, when did she stay with you in that
year?
A. 1998, she stayed with us at Christmas and New Year, she stayed with us at Easter and then she died.
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, again we have looked at the 1998 diary. I don't want to take you by surprise, by all means
have a copy of it in front of you?
A. I have seen it.
Q. Would you accept that there is nothing in the 1998 diary where your mother has recorded at any time staying
with you?
A. Could I have a look at the diary because I think there is probably something there.
Q. Certainly. My Lord, in terms of exhibit it is AW 6. It is volume 1 part 2. Effectively the beginning at page 10.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: I didn't quite catch the page, Miss Davies.
MISS DAVIES: Page 10 my Lord. For the members of the jury it is not in their bundle?
A. Can I touch it?
MR. HENRIQUES: Please do?
THE WITNESS: You see the entry April 7th.
MISS DAVIES: Just a moment?
A. It is in German. So it's Dienstag. And it says, "J. Shaw taxi 12.50." That was a taxi to the station to come to
our house and I met her from the train on that day. John Shaw was the person who used to take her to the
station.
Q. Any other entry which you say relates to your mother staying at your home?
A. No. She was with us in January and in April. That was the times she was with us in 1998.
Q. Would you also accept, Mrs. Woodruff, and I don't know to what extent you have gone through the earlier
diaries of your mother, that in earlier years 93, 94, 95, 96, indeed in 97, she has recorded, "To Angela's" or
"Possibly to Angela's?"
A. There was more time of life then, wasn't there? She died on June 24th 1998.
Q. Forgive me, Mrs. Woodruff, that wasn't the point I was making. What I was attempting to suggest was that in
earlier years if she was going to you or contemplating going to you she would make an entry in the diary,
whereas in the year 1998 there does not appear to be a specific entry in her diary?
A. I don't think there is any significance in that at all.
Q. Sorry?
A. I don't think there is any significance in that at all. She came to stay with us in April.
73
Q. Mrs. Woodruff, can I leave the issue of significance to one side please. As a matter of fact it is correct, is it
not, that in 1998 your mother does not record in her diary either "To Angela's," or "Possibly to Angela's?"
A. It is a matter of fact that she came to stay with us two weeks at Easter in April 1998.
Q. As the Court is already aware you are a solicitor. That is right, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Having qualified in 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. Specifically you are a partner in a firm called ************ j n *********?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you help please, Mrs. Woodruff, what is the nature of your practice?
A. Do you mean my particular practice?
Q. Yes please?
A. I do family law and property associated with that and probate.
Q. When you say property associated with that?
A. Conveyancing associated with family law.
Q. What does probate cover?
A. Wills and when people die.
Q. And you have been a partner with **************** fo r how many years?
A. I am not sure actually.
Q. Did you do what we call your articles there?
A. I didn't. Probably about 15 years or more. I don't know.
Q. Are you full time, in full time practice?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you been in full time practice for many years when for example the boys were growing up?
A. Not when the children were young.
Q. How long have you been in full time practice?
A. Probably for about the last, full time for about the last 8 years.
Q. You have identified to the Court the Will made by your mother in 1986?
A. Yes.
Q. That was a Will in fact you played a part or indeed were responsible for the restructuring of that Will?
A. Yes.
Q. You told the Court she made a Will I think in 1955?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that a will in fact subsequent to your father's death?
A. No. Which Will? The Will in 1955 my father was still alive.
Q. And then the one in 86 was made?
A. M y father died in 68.
Q. Therefore this Will, the one that in fact we can find at page 4 of your bundle, that was the Will which you
restructured?
A. Yes.
74
Q. What exactly does restructuring mean?
A. My mum's will in 1955 was made when I was I suppose ** and it referred to my father and instead of
referring to me by name it just said "to such a children as" because she thought she might have more children
presumably, and she said to me, "Please could you redraw my will taking your father out," because she didn't
want, you know, him to be mentioned. So that's what I did, that's all I did.
Q. Could you just pick up please the bundle, Mrs. Woodruff, just to have a look at that document page 4?
A. Sorry, what page is it?
Q. Page 4 and you will find it, it is after the photographs, it is after the death certificate. It is then the next
document on. It comes immediately before the photograph of your mother?
A. Yes. I have it.
Q. You have it?
A. Yes.
Q. And by the provisions of that Will she bequeaths all her real and personal estate to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Her daughter, and your mother appointed you as the sole executrix of her Will?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have told us that the original of that document was kept in your offices, **************?
A. Yes.
Q. But your mother kept her own copy?
A. Yes.
Q. You said she had a document chest at her house. The document chest, when your mother was living there
would that be locked or unlocked?
A. Well, it was locked. We had trouble finding the key but it was locked, yes.
Q. In respect of this Will this was not the only Will of which you were an executor because jointly with your
husband you were also executors of the Will of your father-in-law, Cyril Woodruff, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Your father-in-law died on the 27th April of 1996?
A. Yes that's right, yes.
Q. A grant of probate was obtained in respect of his estate which was done on the 27th June 1996?
A. I can't remember the date but....
Q. Right?
A. It sounds about right, I can't....
Q. Would you have a look at this document please?
A. Yes, that's the one.
Q. Could you just hold that document for one moment, Mrs. Woodruff. You, given the nature of your practice,
would understand this, it is the document from the District Probate Registry in Birmingham and it is the grant of
probate in respect of your late father-in-law's estate?
A. Yes.
Q. And it recites the executors there, David Philip Woodruff and yourself Angela Woodruff?
A. Yes.
Q. And going down the document which, as I say, is dated 27th June 1996, it then deals with the estate.
75
"It is hereby certified that it appears from information supplied on the application for this grant that the gross
value of the said estate in the United Kingdom amounts to £1,044,784 and the net value of such estate amounts
to £1,034,529.'
That properly represents the value of your father-in-law's estate at the date of his death?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you in fact have either the original or a copy of this document either at home or in your office?
A. Yes we do. We have it at home.
Q. My Lord, as Mrs. Woodruff has recognised and identified this document we do have copies for my learned
friends and my Lord, and indeed one for the jury which could be put in the jury bundle. Can I apologise, we
have just realised they have not been punched with holes.
MR. HENRIQUES: Could we suggest a separate file for documents produced by the defence and tomorrow we
will provide a folder for them.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Very well. I don't want to embarrass you, Miss Davies, but are we likely to have any
more documents this afternoon?
MISS DAVIES: I would say maximum of two, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Members of the jury, don't put them into your bundle, just keep it loose for the
moment and as Mr. Henriques has indicated you will be provided with a separate bundle to put them into
tomorrow morning. Yes.
MISS DAVIES: Can I move on then please, Mrs. Woodruff. In respect of the estate of your father-in-law the
Will and Testament in respect of which yourself and your husband were joint executors provided that, save for 2
sums in the order of £25,000 each to a Hospice Trust and I believe to a health authority or hospital fund, the
remainder—
A. It was to the church actually.
Q. The church, my apologies, was left to your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. Again this is a copy?
A. Yes, that is my father-in-law's will.
Q. Again, my Lord, as the document has been identified by the witness and perhaps before any further copies
are handed out, Mrs. Woodruff, one can see that the two sums bequeathed at paragraphs 2 and 3, the sum of
£25,000 to the Parochial Church Council of the Church of St. Thomas, Lumn Road, Hyde, and also 25,000 for
the Tameside and Glossop Hospice Trust. Thereafter the residue of the estate to your husband in the event that
your husband was alive at the date of his father's death?
A. Yes.
Q. My Lord, again we have copies made of that please. Mrs. Woodruff, your husband, is it right he is presently
Professor of Physics at *****************?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, you are in full time practice as a solicitor?
A. Yes.
Q. Your husband is in receipt of income from his position as Professor at ******** and in addition to that there
is inherited wealth certainly from the estate of your late father-in-law, that is correct isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you accept that financially you are not a family in need?
A. We are not a family in need, no.
76
Q. You live and have lived for many years in ******************* which is in *******. By a voluntary
disposition dated 14th March 1997 made by yourself and your husband, you transferred the title of that property
to the sole name of your husband, is that right?
A. Yes.
MR. HENRIQUES: Sorry my Lord, I am not interrupting to be at all obstructive but would your Lordship just
make a direction that the witness's address be not published for obvious reasons, burglary and the like. There are
recent directives as to witnesses giving addresses and having regard to the particulars that are being disclosed,
we are not seeking in any way to obstruct this trial, to obstruct the jury's information, but if this address is
published we would apprehend it is not in the public interest.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Miss Davies, of course as you know it is not normal practice for the addresses of
witnesses to be disclosed as part of the proceedings for the reasons and others Mr. Henriques has referred to.
Have you any objection to my making the directions?
MISS DAVIES: No, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Very well. I direct that there is to be no publication of the address of Mrs. Woodruff
without leave of the Court.
MISS DAVIES: Mrs. Woodruff, accepting that voluntary disposition in March of 1997, may I ask this, in March
of 1997 what future event, foreseen or anticipated by yourself, warranted the voluntary transfer of title of the
matrimonial home out of the joint names of yourself and your husband and into his sole name?
A. It was to cope with the vagaries of private practice. As a lawyer, times are hard as lawyers.
Q. I don't want to embarrass you, Mrs. Woodruff, but was that in the event that there might be a claim of some
sort or another upon you professionally?
A. It was a worry that if anything happened with the practice the property was in our joint names. It was
concerned with my practice and my concerns about that aspect. That was the reason for it. I think a lot of
lawyers do the same.
Q. As at the date of your mother's death you believed that under the terms of her last Will you were the sole
beneficiary?
A. I did but at the time my mother died it was the last thing in my mind I was worried about.
Q. I wouldn't suggest otherwise but as a matter of fact that is correct, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. It was on the 14th July that you spoke to Brian Burgess from Hamilton Ward solicitors and learnt for the first
time of the existence of what was described as another Will?
A. Yes.
Q. It was on the 15th July that you were by then in possession of faxed documents one of which on the face of it
was a Will relating to your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. Following receipt of those documents on the 19th July you visited certainly Claire Hutchinson?
A. Yes. I can't remember the date but - yes, I can, it was the day my son went to Japan. Yes, it was the 19th July.
Q. Was it also on that date that you also visited Mr. Spencer?
A. No, not on the same day.
Q. Claire Hutchinson was one the signatories to the will of the 9th June?
A. We had her address from the Will.
Q. You visited her, it was a weekend was it not?
A. It was a Sunday, yes.
77
Q. And you went with your husband?
A. Yes.
Q. And you spoke with her about the circumstances relating to the signing of that document on the 9th June?
A. We asked her if that was her signature on the document, the photocopy document that we had.
Q. Did you learn from her that she had signed a document in Dr. Shipman's surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you learn from her that she had been asked to sign such a document together with one other young man
who had been waiting with her in the area prior to seeing Dr. Shipman?
A. She said there was another, I think she said young man, she said there was a man who had witnessed
something with her.
Q. And did she tell you that she went into Dr. Shipman's surgery or consulting room and there was a lady who, I
couldn't give you the exact words as she described the lady but an elderly lady, something of that sort?
A. I can't remember what she said. There was a lady in there. I can't remember how she described her. I was a
little upset at the time.
Q. And she told you that in Dr. Shipman's surgery when she had gone in there was herself, the man from the
reception area, Dr. Shipman and this other lady, four of them in the room at one time?
A. That was the impression I got, yes.
Q. And both she and the other man were asked to witness a document?
A. Yes.
Q. And she identified the document she was asked to witness as being a last Will and Testament?
A. No she didn't. She didn't say it was a Will.
Q. What did she say it was?
A. She just said a document.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. I think so.
Q. You showed her a photograph of your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. You left Mrs. Hutchinson's home. Did it become a rather difficult meeting?
A. She was very helpful. She was very co-operative. She invited us in, but I was very distressed so in that way it
was difficult.
Q. Did there come a time when it was suggested to yourself and your husband by the husband of Mrs.
Hutchinson that you should leave?
A. I don't recall that but maybe by then I was too upset. I don't remember. We were certainly not going to
impose ourselves on them for very long anyway.
Q. Were you upset because having seen Mrs. Hutchinson you had learnt that a person who you believed to be
your mother had been in Dr. Shipman's surgery and had signed in the presence by two people a document?
A. I am not sure how much I can say but—
MR. HENRIQUES: My Lord, that does prompt an objection I have been minded to make for sometime. The law
of hearsay, of course, applies to the defence just as it applies to the prosecution. And what was said in the
absence of any party as between this witness and Mrs. Hutchinson in that meeting is hearsay, all of it. As the
witness says she is not sure how much she can say.
, MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Well, Miss Davies.
MISS DAVIES: M y Lord, I accept as a premise what my learned friend is saying but it really goes to the
78
knowledge which Mrs. Woodruff had following this meeting.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Very well. In that case you may continue with the questions but do bear in mind that
there is a rule—
MISS DAVIES: Yes, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: ...of evidence to which Mr. Henriques has referred.
MISS DAVIES: My Lord, where this began, ie these last questions began, was that the meeting was becoming a
rather difficult one and that whether Mrs. Woodruff—
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: If it helps, my note, it is of course only my note, is that Mrs. Woodruff said, "I was
very distressed. It was a difficult meeting. I do not recall Mr. Hutchinson asking me to leave."
MISS DAVIES: My Lord, I don't think I need take it any further than that for these purposes.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Very well.
MISS DAVIES: Following that meeting you had another meeting with the other person who witnessed a
document in your mother's presence and there came a time when you contacted the police. Now my learned
friend suggested this morning that it was the 24th July, is that right?
A. I can't remember the exact date. I would have it in my notes which I can't look at but....
MR. HENRIQUES: We will find out.
MISS DAVIES: I am told by Mr. Henriques he will ascertain the exact date.
A. It would be about that but I can't say exactly.
Q. Can I assist as to this, would it be a matter of days after you had seen Mrs. Hutchinson and Mr. Spencer?
A. Yes.
Q. And putting it very shortly indeed, you contacted the police because you had suspicions about your mother's
death?
A. I had suspicions about the Will. And I began to have suspicions about my mother's death although it was a
hard one to believe.
Q. Following the death of your mother, and certainly after you had contacted the police, there came a time when
you gave to the police certain objects, be they diaries of your mother's or certain documents and certain capsules
that were found. Looking at the statements it appears you did it on two occasions, the first on the 31st July and
the second occasion on the 10th August. Do you have any memory as to that?
A. Well, I know when the police came to see us at home we gave them some documents and yes, I can't say but
it is possible. I would have it in my notes but I can't say.
Q. I really don't think there is any dispute but that on the 10th August you gave to a police officer again certain
objects, including some capsules which you have told us were found in your mother's handbag. They were blue
capsules I think?
A. Yes. I can't remember now.
Q. Are you able to recall, Mrs. Woodruff, when you found those capsules in your mother's handbag?
A. No, I am not able to recall. No I am not.
Q. Can you help as to why you gave those capsules to the police?
A. Because the police were investigating my mother's death and medicines seemed to become important.
Q. When did medicines seem to become important?
A. I can't say for sure. Again I would have it in my notes but I can't say.
79
Q. But it would appear certainly by the 10th August when you came across those peppermint oil capsules?
A. It would appear so, yes. I can't say for sure.
Q. The handbag in which those capsules were found, was that in your mother's house?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you find any other form of medication at your mother's house?
A. I haven't looked at the medication in my mother's house. I only emptied her handbag. I was too upset to go
through my mum's things.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Just sit down for a second?
A. I didn't go through my mother's things. It was too upsetting.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Mrs. Woodruff do sit down. Take as long as you like to recover your composure.
Please don't get up until you are ready to continue. (Short pause) Are you all right?
A. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Are you sure? Yes, Miss Davies.
MISS DAVIES: Do you know when your husband carried out that task?
A. I don't know, I would have it in my records but I don't know now.
Q. Can I simply ask you this, do you know following your husband's carrying out of that task whether he found
any medication at your mother's house?
A. I know that he found medication, yes.
Q. Do you know what type of medication he found?
A. I know there was some peppermint oil tablets which my mum took for her digestion and I think there was
some calcium supplement and I think there were some sleeping tablets.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: I am sorry but your voice is perhaps understandably going away somewhat. Do you
think—
A. Some peppermint oil tablets.
Q. Go over it again. Peppermint oil?
A. Calcium supplement and I think some sleeping tablets.
Q. Did you say calcium supplement?
A. Yes.
Q. And something else?
A. Some sleeping tablets I think.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Yes thank you.
MISS DAVIES: Mrs. Woodruff, I know I haven't really asked this question but having given that answer
perhaps we can work it out in time. Do you know whether your husband found those tablets before or after the
10th August when you gave the police officers the capsules you found in your mother's handbag?
A. I'm sorry, I can't tell you without looking in my notes.
Q. Again can you help as to this, on the occasion that your husband carried out this task were you present in
your mother's house when he did it?
A. I'm not sure I was in my mother's house. I don't know where I was. I don't like going into my mother's house.
If we go there I don't go into the house, I go to the garden or the chapel or something. I don't like being in my
mother's house.
Q. One final point, in respect of learning that your husband had found any other medication in the house, do you
know when he informed you of that?
80
A. Can you repeat that please? I don't understand the question.
Q. Do you remember when your husband told you that he had found other medication in your mother's house?
A. No I don't remember. It wasn't a particular issue. He was just clearing out things that he knew would upset
me, personal things.
MISS DAVIES: I have no further questions thank you.
81
6.2. Appendix 2: Transcript of Examination-in-chief
ANGELA WOODRUFF, sworn
Examined by MR. HENRIQUES
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Would you like to sit down?
A. Just for a minute please. I'll be all right.
MR. HENRIQUES: If at any stage you would like a break, it will be no problem. Is your full name Angela
Woodruff?
A. It is.
Q. And Mrs. Woodruff, your occupation please and profession?
A. I am a lawyer.
Q. And a solicitor by training and qualifications?
A. Yes I am.
^^ ^^JJ^J do you now live in *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^ \w
j live in which is ne*ir yes
Q. Do you carry out your practice in that part of the world?
A. I carry out my practice in ********^
Q. Are you the only child of Kathleen Grundy?
A. I am.
Q. And did she own the property at 79 Joel Lane in Hyde?
A. She did.
Q. Just going to ask if we could quickly have a look at the, you are going to be given now a bundle of
documents. If you would just like to open it and behind the first divider in there, thank you very much - you
would be better at handling these lever arch files than we are?
A. Not really, no.
Q. CPS has probably got some cheap ones. Would you look please at the plan. Is that a plan of your mother's
home as it was? It has been drawn comparatively recently.
A. Yes it is.
Q. And then can we just skip fairly quickly through because it is the jury's first opportunity really of looking at
these. Can we see pictures on the first page of the front of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Photograph 4, the front door, photograph?
A. Yes it is a false door, but yes.
Q. I am going to ask you about that?
A. Okay.
Q. It is a front door that is false, it does not open and nobody goes in that way, is that right? Photograph 6, a
view down the left of the house. Photographs 7 and 8, a view towards the gate at the left side of the house and a
view from the side door towards the front of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Now could you help us, photograph 10 in the bundle, a view of the door at the left side of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Now that door, is that a door that is used?
A. That is the main door to the house. It is the front door but it is on the side.
82
Q. It is the one that your mother's visitors would have used?
A. Yes.
Q. And I take you it you would have used that when you went to the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Photograph 13, is that a view of that same door from the hallway?
A. That's my mum's hall, yes.
Q. Photograph 15, a view of the kitchen towards the rear door?
A. Yes.
Q. Photograph 17, a view of the kitchen towards the door leading towards the hallway?
A. Yes it is.
Q. In other words the opposite direction to the photograph 15?
A. Yes.
Q. Then photograph 21, a view of the dining room from the kitchen area and photograph 23?
A. Sorry, can you wait a minute? Yes 21, yes.
Q. We have tried to be selective with these photographs and weeded out the ones that add nothing. 23, a view of
the dining area?
A. Yes.
Q. 24, the dining area?
A. Yes.
Q. 28, view from the hallway into the downstairs toilet. 29, is that a view down the stairs from the landing?
A. It is.
Q. 30, a view from the landing into the front bedroom?
A. The spare bedroom, yes.
Q. There are then a number of photographs taken upstairs that we need not concern ourselves with but 52, is that
a view of the lounge?
A. Yes.
Q. 53, also of the lounge?
A. Yes.
Q. 54, again in the lounge and 55?
A. Yes.
Q. And 56, showing the staircase leading up out of the lounge, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And likewise 57, the lounge?
A. That's the lounge, yes.
Q. 58 and 59, are those views of the rear garden?
A. Yes.
Q. And 60 and 61, a view of the back of the house from the rear garden looking towards the house?
A. Yes.
Q. 62, a view of the wooden garage at the rear of the house?
A. Yes.
83
Q. Now 63, is that a gate leading from the rear of the house?
A. Yes, it's my mum's back gate which she always kept locked, but yes it is.
Q. Thank you very much indeed. Now about 2 o'clock on the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th June of last year
did you receive a telephone call from the police at Hyde?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And did you learn from that phone call that your mother had been found dead at her home?
A. I did.
Q. And as a result of what the police told you did you make contact with the firm Massey's undertakers?
A. I did, yes.
Q. Did you speak there to—
A. I spoke to Debbie Massey, yes.
Q. Did you arrange with her for the removal of your mother's body to the chapel of rest?
A. I did.
Q. And was your mother's doctor, Dr. Shipman from Market Street in Hyde and did you, knowing that fact, ring
the doctor's surgery?
A. I did telephone the doctor's surgery, yes.
Q. Did you speak to Dr. Shipman's wife?
A. Initially I spoke to Mrs. Shipman, yes.
Q. And having initially spoken to her was an arrangement made that Dr. Shipman would ring you back?
A. Yes. Mrs. Shipman said that the doctor would want to speak to me.
Q. You bear in mind—
A. So the doctor—
Q. Your early days of evidence that the hearsay rule restricts us to what—
A. I am not a criminal lawyer but yes.
Q. So I am deliberately skipping through phone calls between you and anybody else so the jury know we cannot
properly hear about those, but the essence of the matter was that Dr. Shipman would ring you back?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you, before we deal with the contents of the conversation you had on the afternoon of your mother's
death with Dr. Shipman, can I ask you how clear your memory of that conversation is?
A. It's hazy because I was very very upset.
Q. Of course, of course. Now during that conversation was anything said about when your mother had last
visited the doctor at his surgery?
A. Dr. Shipman told me that he had seen my mother the previous day at his surgery.
Q. Yes?
A. And he said that he had seen her on the morning of her death.
Q. Did he say where he had seen her on the morning of her death?
A. He said he had seen her at home.
Q. Right. Did he say what had caused him to see your mother at her home on the morning she died?
A. I was too upset and I didn't ask him. I had an impression that she called him out which subsequently was
wrong but I don't, I was too upset to ask him.
84
Q. Now was the subject of a postmortem mentioned in the phone call that you had with Dr. Shipman?
A. It was. I asked Dr. Shipman whether a postmortem would be necessary.
Q. Right. Just stopping there, what was Dr. Shipman's response?
A. He said to me, A postmortem isn't strictly speaking necessary because I have seen your mother recently.'
Q. And did you say anything in reply to that?
A. I was happy that my mother didn't need a postmortem, that it wasn't necessary, so I said, 'Fine.'
Q. Was anything said about the issuing of a death certificate?
A. Dr. Shipman said to me that the death certificate would be available at his surgery the following day and I
arranged to go and collect it.
Q. Right. And was that really the essence of the telephone call so far as you can recollect it on that day?
A. Yes it was.
Q. Now the following day, Thursday 25th June, did you travel with your husband to Hyde to make the funeral
arrangements and of course to see to your mother's affairs?
A. Yes I did.
Q. And did you on arrival in Hyde go in person to speak to Dr. Shipman?
A. I did.
Q. Was that on the morning of Thursday the 25th June?
A. Yes. I think we arrived at his surgery at about quarter to 9.
Q. Now did a conversation then take place with Dr. Shipman?
A. It did, yes.
Q. Who was present at that?
A. M y husband and I.
Q. So the two of you?
A. He took us into his small surgery.
Q. Yes. Now did he, I asked you earlier about the phone call on the Wednesday and you told us because you
were so upset your recollection is very hazy, can you help us as to your recollection of the face to face
conversation on the Thursday?
A. Just a minute. Yes, Dr. Shipman told us that he had seen my mother the previous day before her death for a
routine thing.
Q. Now just stopping there, did he say where he had seen her?
A. At his surgery.
Q. At his surgery for a routine thing?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he say what the routine thing was?
A. No he didn't.
Q. Did he say how he had found your mother the previous day?
A. He said that she had complained to him of feeling unwell and he mentioned, it was a little bit vague but he
mentioned chest pains, maybe indigestion.
Q. And did he say what, by reason of your mother having mentioned chest pains, whether he decided to take any
action or do anything?
A. He said that he had arranged to go and see her on the following day which was the day she died, the
following day from when she had been in the surgery to take a blood sample.
85
Q. And did he say at what time he had taken a blood sample from your mother?
A. He told us that he had arranged to call at my mother's before his morning surgery. He said that he went past
my mother's house on his way to the surgery and so he would call there before surgery fairly early in the
morning. He said the blood needed to be fresh and that is why he would call there.
Q. That is why he would call early in the morning. Did he give some idea as to what he meant by early in the
morning?
A. Well, he said before his surgery and I presumed his surgery started at 9 but I don't know.
Q. Sometime before surgery. Did he say anything about the convenience of calling at your mother's?
A. Well, just that he passed there every day and so he could easily call in.
Q. And did he tell you that indeed he had taken a blood sample from your mother that morning?
A. Yes he did.
Q. Did he say how your mother was dressed at the time?
A. He said she was in her nightdress.
Q. Now was cause of death discussed in the conversation that you had with Dr. Shipman in his surgery?
A. He wasn't specific about my mother but he did tell us that sometimes old people complain about feeling
unwell a few days before they die and then they just simply die. He didn't actually say that that's what had
happened to my mother, but he implied it.
Q. Right. Did he say anything about or give any reason for your mother dying?
A. If I recollect, no he didn't really. He was just implying that it was old age but he didn't say, "Your mother
died of old age."
Q. Now can you remember what happened so far as a death certificate was concerned?
A. Well, Dr. Shipman gave us the piece of paper, I don't know what you call it, which we took to the registrars,
but Dr. Shipman had, in the surgery he had told us that he had put on the death certificate old age.
Q. Yes. Now having been to the doctor's surgery did you then go to your mother's house and did you see there
her neighbour, Audrey Adshead?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, bearing in mind the hearsay rule, did she fill you in with the details as to who had come to the
house and matters such as that?
A. Yes she did.
Q. And later that day, after you had arranged the funeral, did you receive a telephone call from Dr. Shipman's
surgery?
A. From Dr. Shipman's receptionist, yes.
Q. And the purpose of that phone call?
A. She asked us when my mum's funeral was and where it was.
Q. Did you give details of the funeral?
A. We did, we said it was on July 1st at Hyde Chapel.
Q. Indeed did your mother's funeral take place at Hyde Chapel on Wednesday 1st July?
A. It did.
Q. Now during the evening of Monday the 13th July did you have a conversation with your mother's neighbour,
Audrey Adshead?
A. I did.
Q. And did you learn from that that a firm of solicitors had been trying to make contact with you?
A. I did.
86
Q. And as a result of that, on Tuesday the 14th July did you make telephone contact with a gentleman Brian
Burgess at a firm of solicitors called Hamilton Ward solicitors in Market Street in Hyde?
A. I did.
Q. And did you learn from him that he was in possession of a new Will, or what purported to be a new Will,
dated the 9th June of 1998 and a covering letter dated the 22nd June 1998, and a letter signed by somebody
Smith dated the 28th June of 1998?
A. Yes.
Q. And over the telephone did he read those documents to you and then fax those documents to you?
A. Yes he faxed them to my office, yes.
Q. Now I am going to ask please if you would just take up the bundle that you have had in front of you and just
so you are able to find your way around them, find page 280 which is very early on in the file just after the
photographs that we have looked at and you will see the death certificate and the certified copy of death
certificate. Then you will find the original Will, a photograph and an attendance sheet. At the very bottom you
see the next page in fact, 280 at the bottom. You see that?
A. Sorry, I haven't found it yet. Yes, I have got 280.
Q. Was that one of the documents faxed to you by Mr. Burgess?
A. Yes, that's a copy letter, yes.
Q. Was the document at BB 2 page 281 faxed to you and the letter?
A. The Will, yes.
Q. B B —
A. And the letter, yes.
Q. Now having received those 3 documents did you obtain Mr. Burgess's permission to speak to the persons
whose signatures seem to appear on page 281?
A. Yes I did.
Q. And as a result of what they said to you did you become concerned?
A. I did, I became very concerned, yes.
Q. And in particular did you study the text of the Will on page 281?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I am going to in due course ask you about your mother's life, how she spent her time and her
qualifications and the work that she did. But looking at the wording on that Will, as you read the wording on the
Will were you able to associate that with your mother's phraseology?
A. Not at all, no.
Q. Can you tell us why please?
A. Well, it's badly typed. My mother was a meticulous, tidy person.
Q. Can I just stop you there. Could your mother type?
A. A long long time ago she qualified as a secretary but she has not typed for years and years and years. She
always hand wrote everything immaculately.
Q. And the choice of words in that document?
A. The whole thing was just unbelievable. Just didn't
make—
Q. When you say the whole thing was unbelievable?
A. The concept of my mum signing a document leaving everything to her doctor was inconceivable.
87
Q. Yes?
A. The thought of her signing a document which was badly typed, just didn't make any sense.
Q. Just like you to look at the first line of that in which she purports to leave "All my estate money and house to
my doctor." Did she own one house or more than one house?
A. When she died she owned 2 houses.
Q. Thank you. Now when you received the copy of the Will did you recognise the signature on the Will?
A. The signature looked strange. My mum's signature I am talking about. It looked too big. It didn't look right.
Q. And I am going to ask you now please just, and I will try to lead you through it if I may, so that really the
jury can get a picture of your mother and how it may tie in with the alleged cause of death of old age, was your
mother born in 1916?
A. She was, yes.
Q. And did she go to the local grammar school in Hyde?
A. She did.
Q. Having left school what was her occupation?
A. She was a secretary.
Q. And did she marry your father in 1941, your father being a university lecturer at Manchester University?
A. She did. He taught her at school as well.
Q. And after you were born 4 years later in 1945 had your mother worked up until then?
A. She worked until I was born, yes.
Q. So 29 when you were born, she had worked between leaving school and your being born, thereabouts?
A. Yes.
Q. Then did she become a full time mother and housewife but did she also do some work helping her mother
and brother in the office of a family business?
A. She helped in the family business, in the painting and decorating business. She would do some invoices,
things like that, yes.
Q. Was your father a very active local politician in Hyde and did he become a councillor for Werneth Ward and
in due course an Alderman?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And was he Mayor of Hyde in 1962 and 3 and was your mother his Mayoress?
A. Yes.
Q. And did your mother become involved in charity work as long ago as the 1950s?
A. She did, when she started with the WRVS.
Q. The Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Did she do meals on wheels for them?
A. She did, yes.
Q. And then in the 60s did she help to set up what was known as the penny a week scheme?
A. She did, yes.
Q. And then was that a charity to help old people in need?
A. It's a penny a week was deducted from employees' wages to go into a fund to help old people, yes.
Q. Did your father die in 1968 from a heart attack and did that leave your mother a widow at the age of 52?
A. Yes.
Q. But did she respond to that by throwing herself into charity work and in local politics?
A. Yes. She never stopped.
88
Q. Never stopped. And did she herself become a councillor for the Werneth Ward?
A. She did.
Q. Is that your father's old ward?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And did she serve on Hyde Town Council for several years?
A. She did, yes.
Q. But then local Government was reorganised and Hyde became part of Greater Manchester, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And her seat would have formed part of Tameside Council?
A. She didn't want to be part of that.
Q. But did she continue nevertheless with her charity work?
A. She did, ceaselessly, yes.
Q. Was one of her busiest charities running Werneth House?
A. It was. It took a lot of her time.
Q. Was that a day centre for old people in Gee Cross?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they have a luncheon club?
A. They did.
Q. And was she one of the principal volunteers organising those lunches that were 3 times a week, Monday,
Wednesday and Friday?
A. Yes those were her 3 days, yes.
Q. And did she have to really be there on those 3 days from about 11 o'clock in the morning until about 3.30 in
the afternoon?
A. Well, she got there to help prepare the lunches and then she would help serve them and clear up.
Q. What age of person was she catering for there?
A. I suppose people between 65 and 85.
Q. Most—
A. People younger than her a lot of them.
Q. Most of them younger than her. We have heard that on the day she died that she would have been there if she
could have been. Was she also heavily involved in the local branch of Age Concern?
A. She was, yes.
Q. And did she spend a lot of time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that is the non-luncheon club days, in the Hyde
Good as New shop?
A. She did, and sometimes on Saturdays as well.
Q. Was she responsible for banking all the cash at the shop?
A. She was, yes.
Q. Did she in fact, and we will produce documentation in due course, I think you have seen it, she paid in the
week's takings for the shop on the morning prior to her death?
A. Before she died, yes.
Q. And did she also serve on the Community Health Council?
89
A. She did.
Q. Was she chairman for several years during the late 70s?
A. She was, yes.
Q. Was she involved also in the orthopaedic unit at Hyde Hospital?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she indeed up to her death a member of the Mayoress of Hyde's Committee?
A. She was.
Q. Not quite got the title right, The Mayoress of Hyde's Committee and the Mayor of Hyde's Trust Fund. Are
they two separate things?
A. They are two separate things.
Q. In between those activities did she find time to help a number of old people with their shopping?
A. She was for ever helping people, yes.
Q. Did she give a lot of financial advice to people about financial management that sort of thing?
A. Yes. We are only talking minor financial management, not major, but how to deal with their pension and
things like that.
Q. Building societies?
A. Yes.
Q. Getting a proper rate of interest?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. Do you and your husband have two sons?
A. We do.
Q. Is that Richard born in Matthew born in ****?
A. Yes.
Q. Did your mother stay with you for several weeks after their birth?
A. She did.
Q. And as they grew up did she spend a lot of time visiting?
A. She did. She would usually come for 1, 2, 3 weeks several times a year.
Q. And was she always supportive of them?
A. Totally and utterly.
Q. Was she keenly interested in all their achievements and leisure activities?
A. A very proud grandmother, yes.
Q. And just before she died had something happened that caused her to be particularly proud in relation to each
of them?
A. Well, one of my sons had got a new job and my other son had got a first class degree so she was delighted,
yes.
Q. The new job, was that in Japan with the British Embassy?
A. It's not with the British Embassy, it was teaching.
Q. Teaching in Japan?
A. Yes, teaching English in Japan.
Q. But she was delighted with both those events, the British Council was it?
A. It was sponsored by, it is called JET. It's an organisation sponsored by the Japanese Government actually.
90
Q. And her levels of energy, did they diminish in any way in the weeks and months prior to her death?
A. I last saw her towards the end of April when she stayed with us but she was just as fit as she ever had been.
We would go out, we could walk 5 miles and she would come in and say, "Where's the ironing," without sitting
down. We used to joke that she was fitter than us. She was just amazing.
Q. And how often would you communicate with one another when you were in Warwickshire and she was at
home in Hyde?
A. Well, I normally rang her on a Friday or she rang me and if there was anything else during the weekend or
the week we would call each other, but Friday was the focus point.
Q. Now she visited you round about Easter time. How did your mother used to get about?
A. Well, she had a car but she didn't drive down to us that Easter, although she has driven down to us regularly,
but that Easter she took the train and we picked her up from the station.
Q. But she was able to drive?
A. Very able to drive, yes.
Q. And what about her cleaning and gardening and matters around the house?
A. Fanatical. She just was always doing something. She did all her own cleaning, all her own gardening apart
from big bushes or trees. She was just amazing.
Q. Can I ask you about the way in which she organised herself in terms of tidiness and that sort of thing?
A. She was a very very tidy person. Everything had to be in order whatever she was doing. She had to look tidy,
write tidily. She was just an extremely organised, tidy person.
Q. At any time did you notice any falling off or change in her habits?
A. No, not at all.
Q. What about things that she wrote, documents, letters and the like?
A. Well, she was a very meticulous tidy writer. She used to complain about my writing because mine is
appalling, but she was very very tidy. Everything had to be just so.
Q. Was she able to compose business letters?
A. Oh yes.
Q. Now can I ask about communications between you and your mother the week before she died. Can you
remember when you in fact spoke to her in that week?
A. I spoke to her on, she died on the Wednesday and I spoke to her on the Thursday before she died. I rang her
up because my son had got the degree and to tell her the results and immediately she sent him a card.
Q. A congratulations card?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it on his first?
A. Yes, and we had a conversation about that on the Thursday night and then I spoke to her on the Friday night
and we were just generally chatting about what she was doing over the weekend and the fact that she was going
on a trip on the Monday to Bakewell with Werneth House, with the sort of trip from the house.
Q. And how did you find her in herself in those 2 phone calls on the Thursday and Fridays?
A. Just absolutely fine. She was telling me about she was thinking of having a new back door and she had been
looking at new back doors, organising that. She was telling me she had been thinking about changing her car
and had our son not being going to Japan she would have let him have her car. She was going to buy a new one.
She was in absolutely fine form so far as I knew.
Q. Now can you help us please as to your mother's attitude to security of her home?
A. She was fanatical about security because she had had a burglary a few years ago so she would always have
her doors locked. For instance, we have been there, my husband has gone out to the car and he has been locked
91
out because she had locked the door. She always liked to have the door locked.
Q. One of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, as you will remember, is that anything you are told about her state
of health you are able to tell us. Was anything said in the Thursday or Friday telephone call about her state of
health at all?
A. Nothing, no. It was just as normal. No, it wasn't mentioned.
Q. Now in recent times was anything at any stage mentioned about her ears at all?
A. Yes. She had mentioned to me at the end of May that she was having some problem with her ears and she
thought maybe there was some wax in and she was going to see the doctor about it.
Q. And did she report back to you after that had been done?
A. She did. She went to see the doctor at the end of May and she told me that the doctor had given her some
drops, presumably to soften the wax, and she had to put these drops in and then go back to the doctor possibly to
have her ears syringed.
Q. When you spoke in your regular and weekly conversations with your mother, if she had been to see the
doctor would you expect to be told about it?
A. Yes, because we just used to chat about things. So I would expect to be told, yes.
Q. Right. Now did you hear about the trip that she went on to Derbyshire?
A. She told me about it in her telephone conversation and then she had sent us all post cards from Derbyshire
which arrived the day before she died.
Q. Now I have just broken into the narrative so that you could tell us, as you had told the police, about your
mother's manner and general health and her energy. Now we had reached the stage when you had obtained Mr.
Burgess's permission to speak to Messrs Spencer and Hutchinson about their signatures on the purported Will.
Did you communicate with the police at 12 noon on Friday 31st July of 1998?
A. I'm sorry, I can't remember the date.
Q. You take it from me that the police do have a record of that time if there is any challenge. 12 noon on Friday
31st July and did you see Detective Constable O'Brien at your home address?
A. We did, yes.
Q. I am sorry, that was when in fact you saw him?
A. That was on the 31 st July. Actually I reported it earlier.
Q. He came to see you then?
A. Yes.
Q. The 24th in fact you reported it?
A. That sounds more like it.
Q. But you saw him on the 31st?
A. Yes. I remember I saw him the day before my mum's body was exhumed, yes.
Q. You handed Mr. O'Brien a number of documents. Did that include a certified copy of the death certificate?
That we have in our bundle and if you will excuse me for one second I would just like to clear a matter with his
Lordship. We are minded, subject to your Lordship agreeing, that every exhibit should still retain the page
number in our bundles for reasons of simplicity. We will give them numbers as well if your Lordship thinks that
appropriate, providing we can keep the number which is on the page, but so far as the documentary exhibits are
concerned, if we refer to it simply as exhibit page 280 and we ensure that they are all listed, would that serve
your Lordship's purposes?
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Yes. That seems perfectly satisfactory. Miss Davies?
MISS DAVIES: My Lord, yes.
92
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Thank you, Mr. Henriques.
MR. HENRIQUES: And just to ensure please that, first of all we have looked already at the death certificate, I
won't trouble you with that, did you also provide the police with the original Will that was dated 1986? It is at
page 4 of your bundle there?
A. 1986 yes.
Q. I can see it in front of you. Can you tell us where that Will will have been kept?
A. Yes, the original Will was kept at my office and my mum had a document chest where she kept her deeds
and she kept a copy of the Will in the document chest.
Q. Now if your mother had any legal work to be done who would do it?
A. Well, I did for her.
Q. You did it for her. Was there to the best of your knowledge anyone else that on any occasion perhaps did any
legal work that need not have troubled you?
A. Not since I qualified.
Q. But a long time ago prior to that?
A. A long time ago, well, her original, her Will before this was drawn up by solicitors in Hyde, Chronnells. We
are talking 1955.
Q. But there was another firm in Hyde?
A. Yes, Bernard Chronnell in Hyde.
Q. Before you qualified, of course, when of course you could not act for her, but that was the will of 1986 and
you now formally produce it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also provide for the police specimen letters for the purposes of providing them with handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, page 7 in the bundle, did you provide that photograph of your mother and others to the police? Is
your mother on the front row on the left as we look at it?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also provide a repeat prescription for your mother and a number of diaries?
A. Yes. Sorry, where is the repeat prescription?
Q. It is not there. I am only referring you to the ones that we need to produce. Did you give the police written
authority to seize your mother's medical records and I need not ask you to produce that?
A. Yes.
Q. And at 11 o'clock on Monday 10th August did you again see Detective Constable O'Brien and did you then
hand to him your mother's driving licence. That is in the bundle at page 285?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that bear your mother's genuine signature, the top of the page if we look at the file the normal way, the
left-hand side of the page?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also hand to the detective officer some bank paying in books, some pocket diaries and a new vehicle
order which again we need not produce but was that your mother, she had actually ordered a new car, was that
right?
A. No, I think that was for her present car, the document was for her present car.
Q. And various other documents, the purpose of which was to provide signatures to the police who at that stage
of course were concerned with the question of forgery primarily?
A. Yes.
93
Q. And did you also hand 6, 2 tone blue capsules to the police?
A. Yes.
Q. Where had you recovered those from?
A. Those were in her handbag.
Q. And there will be evidence about those in due course that they were peppermint oil capsules. Now can I ask
you this, did you have any conversation with your mother whatsoever in the year in which she died or indeed
prior thereto in connection with her altering her will in any way whatsoever?
A. No I didn't.
Q. Were you requested in due course by the police to list your mother's assets?
A. Yes.
Q. And I shall not take you through all of them but did they include the house at 79 Joel Lane Hyde?
A. Yes.
Q. And a second property at 307 Stockport Road, Hyde?
A. Yes.
Q. But the second property, was that tenanted?
A. Yes it was tenanted. The tenant has died but yes it was tenanted.
Q. It was in fact an investment and you gave full details of building society accounts, TESSAs, investment
accounts and shares, and was the total estate as you understood it to be at that date, the 28th September of 1998,
was it £386,402?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you ever had any discussions as to whether your mother wished to be buried or cremated?
A. No, I hadn't had any discussions with her, no.
Q. Were you aware of her views on that topic at all?
A. I don't think she cared one way or the other because she believed when you were dead you were dead. So it
was really me who wanted her buried.
Q. Thank you. Now I asked you earlier to look at the Will. I am going to ask you please if you would look at the
letter that purported to accompany the Will, page 280?
A. Sorry?
Q. If you go back to the photographs?
A. Yes.
Q. And then work on from the photographs past the death certificates and it is just after the genuine Will and
then the photograph. 3 pages after the photograph of your mother?
A. Yes. I have got it, yes.
Q. You have got it. Page 280. Did you recognise the signature on that letter?
A. Well, again it looks rather big. It doesn't look right.
Q. And going over 2 pages to page 282 there is a letter that Mr. Burgess received that is date stamped 30th June
1998.
"Dear sir,
I regret to inform you that Mrs. K. Grundy of 79 Joel Lane, Hyde died last week. I understand that she lodged a
Will with you as I as a friend typed it out for her. Her daughter is at the address and you can contact her there.
94
Yours,"
and there is then a signature which could be a J. or an S. Smith. Have you any knowledge of anybody named J.
or S. Smith connected in any way with your mother?
A. No I don't.
Q. Did two people, a P. and an L. Smith, attend in the list of mourners attending your mother's funeral?
A. Well, I saw their names in the paper as having attended.
Q. And there will in due course be evidence read I think that they are ** *** ***** *** ******** **** ****
Does that Smith or the writer of that letter or the signature mean anything whatsoever to you?
A. No, nothing at all.
Q. Now I am going to ask you about a particular weekend that you were asked I think by the police particularly
to recollect, the weekend of Saturday, the 12th October of 1996. Did you have yourself reason to attend or to be
present in the Manchester area that weekend?
A. Yes I did. It was a reunion for ** years after graduation at Manchester University so the law graduates of that
year were meeting in Manchester.
Q. Dare I ask you which year it was of your University reunion that you were attending?
A. Well, it was ** years. It was 1966 I graduated.
Q. It is your **th anniversary?
A. Of graduation, yes.
Q. And where did you stay for the weekend?
A. I stayed at my mum's house.
Q. And what part of the weekend occupied you at the University?
A. I went on the Saturday, late Saturday afternoon and we had our dinner on the Saturday evening and then I
went back for lunch on the Sunday.
Q. And can you remember when you returned to your home in **************?
A. I took my mum with me after the lunch. My mum was coming with us to France to visit our son so my mum
and I went back to *************** probably about 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon.
Q. Now have you any recollection of your mother attending Dr. Shipman's surgery on Saturday the 12th
October when you were home for your University reunion?
A. I was not aware she had visited him. She didn't tell me she had visited him, no.
Q. Would you expect to have been aware if she had been to the doctors on the Saturday that you were home for
the weekend?
A. I would have thought so because she was a great talker and I think she would have told me that.
MR. HENRIQUES: I shall not ask you to turn up the entry of the 12th October of 1996 but it is at page 503 A U
in our bundle.
My Lord, may I just complete the examination-in-chief at 2.15. There is one small matter I want to look at.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Yes. Mrs. Woodruff, I am sure I don't need to tell you this but forgive me if I just
remind you that whilst you are giving your evidence you must not talk about any aspect of this case or any
aspect of your evidence to anybody at all unless I give you permission to do so. Only I can give permission. I
am sure you understand that.
A. Fine.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Very well. We will break off now, members of the jury, and resume again at 2.15.
Would you like to go with your usher.
Luncheon adjournment
95
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Yes, Mr. Henriques.
MR. HENRIQUES: Now Mrs. Woodruff, I am going to ask you please to look at the original of the document
which is at page 280 in your bundle. If everybody would like to turn up page 280?
A. Sorry, can you tell me whereabouts it is?
Q. Of course I can, sorry. We have got used to it in the last few days. Beyond the photographs of the home and
the plan and the death certificates and the genuine Will, there is then the photograph page 280?
A. Yes.
Q. This is page 280, the letter that purports to be from your mother and bears your mother's name and address in
the top right hand corner. Did your mother have her own printed note paper at home or not?
A. No.
Q. If she wrote a letter in what form would it be?
A. She would handwrite it.
Q. She would handwrite it?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you any experience of her typing letters?
A. Not recently. She hasn't typed for years and years and years.
Q. I am going to ask you just to look at the actual paper. Would you just touch only a minimal part of it because
it has got the dusting powder that the fingerprint experts use upon it. I think a small touching probably wont do
any harm. Was that the sort of paper at all that your mother wrote letters on? Have you come across that at all?
A. No.
Q. I am just going to ask you to look also at the S or the Smith letter in similar way. Have you seen anything
written by your mother on paper of that sort?
A. No.
Q. Now I am going to in particular ask you to look at page 280, the original. The reverse of it, sorry, in this, the
original. Would you just turn it over and look at the reverse. Is there anything on the reverse of that document by
way of mark, writing or other delineation?
A. Can I just ask you which letter is this? What is this document?
Q. That is the document which is at page 280?
A. Yes, okay fine. What did you ask me?
Q. Is there anything on the reverse of it by way of mark?
A. Well, there is a fingerprint and there's some lines.
Q. Can you just describe what you can see that you just pointed to?
A. I can see a fingerprint there and then some Biro lines there.
Q. There are a number of strokes apparently in Biro are there not?
A. Yes.
Q. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in number, is that right, possibly 7?
A. 7 yes.
Q. 7 in number. There are now some protective gloves. You have probably handled it as much as you want to.
But if it can just be put back in that envelope. My Lord, we would like please, first of all your Lordship to look
at and then the jury, the two original documents that appear at page 280 and page 282. And in particular we
invite attention to the reverse of the document at page 280 where there are 7 strokes written upon it.
96
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Members of the jury, take as long as you need to look at these documents. Don't rush.
MR. HENRIQUES: My Lord, there are copies for the jury of the reverse markings on that particular page, could
I ask that it be inserted immediately after page 280. One for your Lordship and 6 for the jury.
MR. JUSTICE FORBES: Members of the jury, I am going to call that 280 A.
MR. HENRIQUES: Thank you, my Lord. Would you just stay there and answer the questions asked of you.
97
Summary
The thesis focuses on the process of turn-taking in witness cross-examination. The
main aim of the paper is to explore what questions lawyers ask in court and what aims the
questions serve.
The Theoretical Part outlines the characteristics of legal language, with a special
focus on courtroom discourse. The genre of witness examination is described and linguistic
aspects important for this genre are discussed; these include the question of power in the
courtroom, storytelling in court and the process of questions and answers.
The introductory section of the Practical Part briefly describes the Shipman Trial,
from which the primary text has been selected. The chosen transcript is introduced and the
research process outlined.
The main body of the thesis is the quantitative and qualitative analysis of a witness
cross-examination. The analysis studies the length of utterances made by the counsel and
witness, the question types used by the lawyer and the nature of witness's answers. Every
part of the analysis is compared to the examination-in-chief carried out by the 'friendly'
lawyer.
The findings show that the counsel utters many more words than the witness, a
substantial number of questions is coercive and the witness is given a limited chance to
present her version of the crime events.
98
Shrnutí
Tato diplomová práce se zabývá otázkami a odpovědmi v křížovém výslechu svědka.
Hlavním cílem práce je zjistit, jaké otázky právníci pokládají svědkům u soudu a jaký je
záměr těchto otázek.
Teoretická část práce popisuje charakteristické znaky právnického jazyka a zaměřuje
se zejména na jazyk u soudu. Práce popisuje výslech svědka a zabývá se lingvistickými
aspekty, které jsou pro tento žánr významné. Mezi tyto patří otázka moci u soudu, vyprávění
a sekvence otázek a odpovědí.
Úvod praktické části popisuje soudní proces s Haroldem Shipmanem, jelikož
analyzovaný text je výslech z tohoto procesu. Dále se úvodní část věnuje vybranému textu a
postupu při výzkumu.
Hlavní částí práce je kvantitativní a kvalitativní analýza křížového výslechu svědka.
Práce studuje délku mluveného projevu právníka a svědka u soudu, druhy otázek položených
advokátem a také odpovědi svědka. Všechny části analýzy j sou porovnány s přímým
výslechem, který vedl ,přátelský' právník.
Výsledky analýzy ukazují, že počet slov advokáta při výslechu byl výrazně vyšší než
počet slov svědka, velký počet otázek při výslechu využívá nátlaku na svědka a svědek má
omezenou možnost prezentovat svoji verzi udalostí spojených s projednávaným trestným
činem.
99