CHAPTER IV : DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
A. Discussions
This section is devided into two sub-sections. First of all, the writer provided the deeper explanation about the phenomenon of flouting and hedging of Cooperative principles made by the Australian expert witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial, in this case Dr. Beng Beng Ong. And then, the writer categorized the ways of flouting and hedging maxims on some criteria that given by Cutting (2002) and Grundy (2007) as the writer explained in the second Chapter.
1. The Types of Maxim of Cooperative Principles which are flouted by Beng Beng Ong In Jessica’s Murder Trial.
Maxim flouting is a way of the speaker that does not observe the maxims of Cooperative Principles, yet, the speaker expects the hearer to understand
35 and convey the message behind it. The discussion below will show how the speaker flouts a maxim
a. Flouting Maxim of Quality
The speaker who flouts the maxim of quantity appears to inform more or lesser details than the hearer actually needs to know. The discussion of each datums bellow elaborates the flouting of this maxim.
Datum 1
Legal Adviser : What if there is no autopsy being perform, in this case only samples are taken from the body, in this case can the pathologist also has authority or competence to determine the cause of death ?
Witness : The pathologist have to consider carefully, because it is only base toxicology result and nothing else.
The Jessica’s Legal Adviser questions about the authority of pathologist in determining the cause of death to the Witness, while there are not a post-mortem examination and only several samples can be obtained. The witness does not dirrectly approving the current legal Adviser’s question in properly words, but he keeps it through the sentence “The pathologist have to consider carefully”.
In this datum the Witness flouts the maxim quality with the sentence
“The pathologist have to consider carefully, because it is only base
36 toxicology result and nothing else”. The witness barely does not answer the question properly. By flouting the quality maxim, the witness wants the legal Adviser to imply his answer as the aggrement about what he has questioned before.
Datum 2
Public Prosecutor 1 : If a person drink baverage which contains cyanide, so far after you read journals, literatures, and other scientific textbooks, what would a person feel out tongue after ingesting cyanide ?
Witness : There is actually nothing much on the taste on how the person feel about the taste of cyanide, but I presume that the taste would be unpleasant.
The conversation above describes about the discussion of the cyanide’s taste based on the journals, literatures, and other scientific textbooks.
The clause “I presume” explain that the witness obviously flouts the quality maxim. He says unprovable/untruthful thing, and it is only coming from his assumption.
37 Datum 3
Public Prosecutor 2 : If a person ingest a toxin and who has the authority to say the content of the toxin left in the body, is it the authority of pathologist or the authority of toxicologist ?
Witness : The pathology perform the post-mortem example the organs and take appropriate specimens for toxicology, and when the toxicology result come back he will look at the toxicology the case entirely take into account the findings of the internal organs, just to correction, take into account the external findings, which is internal organs, and toxicology result, and base on all these then he will give a cause of death. we usually do not like to give a cause of death just based on one result.
The second public prosecutor has a very clear question, he asks about the authority of Toxicologist and Pathologist, who is really compatible to report the content of toxin left in the body. So the answer should be very simple ‘Toxicologist’ or ‘Pathologist’.
However, the witness flout the quality maxims to make the public prosecutor imply his answer through his explanation about the work distribution of Pathologist and Toxicologist.
38 Datum 4
Public Prosecutor 2 : So who has the right to determine or say that the contain of Cyanide lesft in the body, is this amount different, with the cyanide being ingested, is it the pathologist or the toxicologist
?
Witness : I think, the question is very abstract, but all I can say that the pathologist is the one who examine the body, and he gives the collected specimens for the toxicologist to test. So the toxicologist apart for examine the specimens, do not even come close to the body. so I think that the toxicologist would not be the one that will measure the volume of the gastric containing during the time of autopsy, yes, they will measure the volume when ti is to the lab but not during the autopsy.
Again in this conversation, the second public preosecutor questions about whose right to determine the contain of cyanide left in the body, pathologist or toxicologist.
The witness thinks that the question is quite abstract, so the clause/sentence ‘but all I can say’ is a sign of the quality of his next explanation about the work distribution of pathologist and toxicologist.
There are might be the hidden answer for the public prosecutor perplexity.
39 Datum 5
Public Prosecutor 2 : The aroma to the smell of Cyanide you mention that the smell is like bitter almond ?
Witness : Yes it is typically like bitter almond.
Public Prosecutor 3 : That means that the Cyanide has not been mix with other ingredients or other materials, if the cyanide mix with coffee, do you know what smell would come out ?
Witness : I do not think that I will smell Cyanide mix with coffee.
In this conversation, the third public prosecutor and the witness discuss about the specific smell of cyanide. the witness reconfirms that the smell of cyanide basically similiar to bitter almond. Then Public prosecutor asks about what if it mixed with cofee, how the cyanide’s smell is.
The witness flouts the quality maxim by answering it in slightly sarcastic way, “I do not think that I will smell Cyanide mix with coffee”.
The implicature of this flouting maxim would be that the witness doesn't know exactly about the smell of the coffee mixed with cyanide.
Datum 6
Public prosecutor 3 : What I mean is that if Natrium Cyanide is put into coffee will the aroma smell like bitter almond ?
40 Witness : I am not an expert in mixing Cyanide and coffee. I do not
think I should answer this.
The coversation above describes the situation about advanced question of the third public prosecuter, after he do not satisfy about the witness’ answer, which is shown at the datum 5.
However, the witness answers it with an unexpected answer “I am not an expert in mixing cyanide and coffee”. He prefer to use the sarcastic answer, rather than dirrectly says that he do not know any specific smell when the cyanide mix with coffee. Therefore, he is indicated flouts the maxim quality.
Datum 7
Public Prosecutor 3 : You said earlier about symptoms before death, in this case what data that you get ?
Witness : It is based on a description from literature, including books and journal.
Public Prosecutor 3 : For this case, you get the data from what documents ?
Witness : I have the data of the autopsy report, visum entrebentum, toxicology report, and some toxicology statement, and medical notes, and also from the video.
In this conversation, the third public prosecutor asks for what and where the witness obtains the data. Then he says that it is from
41 literarture, journal, and textbooks. But it is not what the public prosecutor asking for. After that, the public prosecutor asks the same question and gets the answer they need. The public prosecutor actually asks for the data that had been examine by the witness, such as autopsy report, medical notes, video, visum entrebentum, toxicology report, and some toxicology statement.
Because of the misiterpretation about ‘data’, the witness flouts the maxim of quality by saying untrutful answer.
b. Flouting Maxim of Quantity
When a speaker flouts the maxim of quality, he/she does not say what he/she really wants to say. The speaker intends something behind his/her utterance. The datums bellow is described comprehensively about the flouting of Quantity Maxim.
Datum 8
Legal Adviser : You are going to take an oath according to your religion.
Witness : I can take an oath according to religion or through affirmation.
This datum shows the flouting of maxim quantity. In this part, the public prosecutor wants to confirm to the witness that he will take an oath accroding to his current religion. But then, the witness confirms
42 that he can do it according to religion, and expands his answer by saying
“or through affirmation”.
Based on his utterances “through affirmation”, it is indicated to the flouting of maxim quantity. he says more, than it has to be.
Datum 9
Legal Adviser : What about your assignment in bali ? who assign you to go to Bali ?
Witness : It was through the Australian Federal Police because of the bombing disaster in Bali.
Legal Adviser : what examination that you perform in Bali ? Witness : I perform post-mortem examination on the victims.
Legal Adviser : was that, did you do that in the knowledge of the Indonesian police of Indonesia, Indonesia national police ?
Witness : Yes, and I think that I was given a certificate of appreciation.
In this situation, the Legal Adviser asks about the witness’
experiences being the forensic pathologist. The witness used to become a volunteer in Bali bombing disaster through the Australian Federal Police. The Legal Adviser asks him that does he do it under the Indoensian Police’s supervision. The witness agrees and adds more information that he receives a a certificate of appreciation.
43 If we take a look to his answer, by adding clause “and I think that I was given a certificate of appreciation”, he absolutely flouts the maxim of quantity which is give more informastion than the Legal Adviser expected.
Datum 10
Legal Adviser : let me confirm with you first here we are not talking about death but about collapse, is it true ? base on your experience what is the difference in terms of the time elapse when somebody inhale cyanide and when somebody ingest cyanide, before they collapse ? Witness : Yes. Generally, inhalation will be faster than the ingestion.
It is also dependent to the consentration of the poison. So the higher doses effects faster, and lower doses the effects will be slower.
In this conversation, the Legal Adviser gives 2 questions. Fisrt of all, he asks for confirmation that they are discussing about the collapse not the death. the witness approves it. The last, he asks about the difference time between inhaling cyanide and ingesting cyanide. the witness answers it infromatively.
The witness adds the additional information about the influence of the cyanide consentartion level. Therefore, the witness flouts the maxim
44 of quantity because he explains more additional information which is not expected.
Datum 11
Legal Adviser : So the amount is very little, could the cyanide be detected with this very little amount ?
Witness : The first thing that I am not a toxicologist, but I know that the sensitive instruments they can analize on very little amount, but the important thing in here that is the toxicology result by the toxicologist, so I assume that the result is valid.
In my center, if I sent a sampel and they cannot analize it I would get result back as insufficient for analisys.
In this conversation, the Legal Adviser asks the witness about the how the very litle amount of the cyanide can be found at the victims body. The witness answers it clearly, even if he is not a toxicologist.
However, there is still the unexpected additional information.
As you can see the underlined words “In my center, if I sent a sampel and they cannot analize it I would get result back as insufficient for analisys.”, it is the overbalance information that is no need to be convey. In conclution, it is the flouting of maxim quantity.
45 Datum 12
Legal Adviser : While the result for BB4 are negative ?
Witness : Yes and because it is negative, it means that it is very, we can rule out she died from cyanide poisoning.
This conversation describes that the Legal Adviser asks for the negativity of BB4 (barang bukti 4) result. Then, the witness confirmation is yes. The witness confirmation should be enough, but there are any unexpected additional information. The underlined words is the overstatement that no need to be. He is just trying to asserting his conclution about the cyanide is not the cause of death, but it is extremly flout the maxim of quantity.
Datum 13
Legal Adviser : You mean how much when you say a large content of stomach, how much, could you mention it ?
Witness : I expect to be about 100-1000 and this has been illustrated in the two cases report.
This datum describes about their discussion about the level cyanide contained in the stomach. When the Legal Adviser asks about the specific number, he answers it obviously. However, the witness flouts the maxim quantity by saying excess information that is not needed at all.
46 Datum 14
Public Prosecutor 1 : Are you saying that if external examination is enough, adequate, then autopsy is not necessary
?
Witness : If you mean internal examination, then yes. that will depend on Indonesia jurisdiction or the countries or other state that orders the autopsy.
The conversation in this datum describes that the public prosecutor asks for the necessary of autopsy if the external examination is already done. His answer should be enough when he says ”If you mean internal examination, then yes”. Nonetheless, he enhances his answer by saying unappropriate answer. He says that it also depends on Indonesian Jurisdiction. The writer indicates it as a flouting maxim of quantity, because his additional information is a must and does not to be mentioned.
Datum 15
Public Prosecutor 1 : Is there an International regulation applicable worldwide concerning in order to establish the cause of death ?
Witness : There is no international convension or regulation on death investigation system. In general, regarding autopsy we do have scientific meetings among the pathologist, discussing about cases and other scientific matters.
47 In this conversation, the public prosecutor asks about the existance of an international regulation in order to esatablish the cause of death.
Unluckly, there is no any international convension or regulation on death investigation system. It should have answered the question overall. But then the witness gives more information regarding the scientific meetings among the pathologist. nevertheless, it has included as the flouting maxim of quantity because he informs more deatails than it has to be.
Datum 16
Public Prosecutor 1 : He would like to know if no embalming is performed how long does take for the organs to deteriorate, so he would like the comparison if embalming perform and not performed ? Another question is which part of the body will be the first to deteriorate if no embalming is conducted and if embalming is conducted and if emabalming is conducted ?
Witness : Again there are many factors that beside on the speed of decomposition, for example environment temperature or the person is ill with already infection, and then decomposition process will be faster. So it is very difficult to give a fix period. If the body has been embalmed and again it depends
48 how effective is the embalming process, the process of decomposition will be very much retarded. If you want to give a specific time period, it is not possible to give a specific period. It is also the same with organs. In general, it is intestines that deteriorate first. But sometimes it can be some other organs.
In this datum, the witness seems flout the maxim quantity. As you can see at his part, the underlined words is the repition. He says twice that it is difficult or possible to give a specific period for the organs decomposition before and after embalming. In this case, he says something excessive.
Datum 17
Public Prosecutor 1 : Do you have certificates showing your expertise on Cyanide ?
Witness : I do not have certificate, and I am not aware if there is such a certificate.
In this conversation, The first public prosecutor wants to know that there are any certificates showing the witness’ exprtise on cyanide.
unfortunately, the witness do not have a certificate. The witness also adds a bit sarcastic information that there is any kind of certificate like that. It means, the witness flouts the maxim quantity because he says more, than it has to be.
49 Datum 18
Public Prosecutor 3 : In which part of the body that the discoloration will appear ? and how long with it take until the discoloration can be seen or become visible ? Witness : The discoloration typically seen in the area of Hypostasis,
and is due to gravitasional blood, so in a person is lying face up, the blood will collect at the back, so this red discoloration will be most distinct at the area of Hypostasis.
The situation is the third public prosecutor asks 2 questions to the witness. the first one is about where is the discoloration will appear and the last one is how long it will take until the discoloration can be seen.
The witness only answers the first one and does not for the second one.
In this case, the witness flouts the maxim quantity because he does not convey all the approriate answer.
Datum 19
Public Prosecutor 3 : If autopsy cannot be done, is the taking of samples from the bail, urine, liver, and stomach, can be a way to ascertain the cause of death ? Witness : Yes. But the better sample for specific for cyanide poisnoning
is actually blood.
In this conversation, the public prosecutor asks that the samples form the bail, urine, liver, and stomach, can be a way to ascertain the
50 cause of death. The witness approves it. The writer thinks that the additional information is indicated as a exaggration, because it is not the answer that the public prosecutor wants. In conclution, he flouts the maxim of quantity by saying information that is not needed.
Datum 20
Public Prosecutor 3 : The question is whether the volume mentioned here, that 0.1 ml is the ideal volume in order to conduct the analysis ?
Witness : The analysis was perform by the toxicologist, and I am not the toxicologist.
In this datum, the public prosecutor asks a question about the ideal volume to conduct the analysis. based on the witness’ answer, that question is only can be answered by the toxicologist, because it is the role of toxicologist. The problem is that the witness says “I am not the toxicologist”. It is obviously the flouting maxim of quantity, because it is the overstatement. He has not to mention something unimportant.
c. Maxim of Relevance
Different from the concept of maxim flouting of quality which uses another expression in telling his/her feeling, a speaker flouts the maxim of relevance expresses what he/thinks by using words that does not have