1

THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES BY

THE AUSTRALIAN WITNESS IN JESSICA’S MURDER TRIAL

(A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH)

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Cultural Sciences Hasanuddin University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain a Graduate Degree in English

Department

by

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA

F21113 516

English Department

Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Hasanuddin University

MAKASSAR

2017

2

THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES BY

THE AUSTRALIAN WITNESS IN JESSICA’S MURDER TRIAL

(A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACH)

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Cultural Sciences Hasanuddin University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain a Graduate Degree in English

Department

by

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA

F21113 516

English Department

Faculty of Cultural Sciences

Hasanuddin University

MAKASSAR

2017

3

4

5

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Bismillahirrahmanirahim.

All praise be for Allah Subhanahu wata’ala, The Magnificent and The

Merciful, Who blesses and guides me to finish my thesis. Shalawat and salam are

also delivered to Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu walaihi wassalam who has

brought Islam as the Rahmatan Lil Alamin.

Finishing this thesis needs support, assistance, and contribution from many

people. Therefore, he would like to express his deepest gratitude to those who have

provided him with moral and material support. His gratitude goes to my first

consultant Dra. Nasmilah, M.Hum,. Ph.D. and second consultant Abidin Pammu,

M.A., Ph.D., TESOL for their encouragement and constructive comment. An

endless thanks to his parents Drs. Pausie Ridwan & Nurwahidah S.Pd., M.Pd, may

the almighty Allah Subahanahu wa ta’ala protect them as they protected me whan

he was a kid. Also for his beloved sisters, Tamara Tungga Dewi and Sri Rezqi

Buana Tungga, his lovely Grandmothers Hj Pisa and Hj. Hawaini, thank for loves,

prays, and support in every single thing. His academic supervisor, Drs, Alwy

Rahman, Dip. TEFL for his advice and care. For all lecturers and his colleagues in

English Depertment, thanks for all the support and help. He also thank to all parties

that he cannot mention one by one who have provided assistance.

The writer realizes that this thesis is still far from perfect. Therefore, the

writer is openly encouraged to any criticisism and suggestion either in writing or

orally for improvements in the next research. Finally, the writer hopes that this

research can be useful for Indonesian education in general and for all of us in

particular.

7

Makassar, June 11, 2017

The writer

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- i

ADMINISTRATION ---------------------------------------------------------- iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ---------------------------------------------------- vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------ ix

ABSTRAK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ xi

ABSTRACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- xii

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTUON ------------------------------------------ 1

A. Background ------------------------------------------------------- 1

B. Scope of Problem ------------------------------------------------ 3

C. Research Questions ---------------------------------------------- 4

D. Objectives of the Research ------------------------------------- 4

E. Significances of the Research ---------------------------------- 5

CHAPTER II : THEORITICAL BACKGROUND ---------------------- 6

A. Previous Studies ------------------------------------------------- 6

B. Theoretical Background ---------------------------------------- 8

1. Pragmatics ---------------------------------------------------- 8

2. Cooperative Principle --------------------------------------- 9

3. Flouting of Maxim Cooperative Principle --------------- 12

a. Flouting of Maxim Quantity -------------------------- 12

b. Flouting of Maxim Quality ---------------------------- 13

c. Flouting of Maxim Relevance ------------------------ 13

d. Flouting of Maxim Manner --------------------------- 14

4. Hedging of Maxim Cooperative Principle --------------- 15

a. Hedging of Maxim Quanity --------------------------- 15

b. Hedging of Maxim Quality ---------------------------- 16

c. Hedging of Maxim Relevance ------------------------ 17

d. Hedging of Maxim Manner --------------------------- 17

9

CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH------------------ 19

A. Library Research ------------------------------------------------- 19

B. Field Research ---------------------------------------------------- 19

1. Method of Collecting Data --------------------------------- 19

2. Method of Analyzing Data --------------------------------- 20

C. Population and Samples ---------------------------------------- 21

1. Population ---------------------------------------------------- 21

2. Samples ------------------------------------------------------- 22

CHAPTER IV : DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ---------------------- 23

A. Discussions ------------------------------------------------------- 23

1. The Types of Maxim Flouting --------------------------- 23

2. The Types of Maxim Hedging --------------------------- 42

B. Findings ----------------------------------------------------------- 55

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS -------------- 58

A. Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------- 58

B. Suggestions ------------------------------------------------------ 59

REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------ 61

APPENDICES ------------------------------------------------------------------- 63

10

ABSTRAK

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA The Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative Principle

Maxims of The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica Murder Trial

(A Pragmatics Study).

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah mengidentifkasi dan menjelaskan jenis-jenis

prinsip kerjasama yang dilanggar dan dibatasi oleh saksi dari Australia dalam

sidang Jessica. Beng Beng Ong adalah seorang ahli patologi yang diundang dalam

sebuah sidang pembunuhan. Selama persidangan, dia harus menjawab setiap

pertanyaan sesuai dengan keahliannya, kebenaran, dan kenyataan. Kondisi ini

membuat penulis mengidentifikasi kemungkinan pelanggaran dan pembatasan

maksim kerjasama dalam ucapannya.

Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan deskriptif kualitatif dan kuantitatif.

Data yang digunakan adalah 39 dialog yang mengandung pelanggaran dan

pembatasan maksim. Data tersebut bersumber dari video dan skrip video. Data

dikumpulkan dengan mengunduh video kemudian mentranskrip/mencatat ujaran-

ujaran. Data tersebut kemudian diproses dalam prosedur kerja yaitu 1) Identifikasi

2) Klasifikasi 3) Deskripsi dan 4) Elaborasi.

Peneletian ini menghasilkan dua poin. Pertama, dari 22 pelanggaran maksim,

pelanggaran maksim kuantitas (13 kali) adalah yang paling sering dilakukan oleh

saksi, karena situasi atau konteks persidangan membuat saksi cenderung

memberikan informasi lebih dari yang seharusnya. Sedangkan pelanggaran maxim

sikap (tidak ada) tidak pernah dilakukan oleh sasksi. Itu dikarenakan perannya

sebagai saksi ahli, jadi dia tidak ingin memberikan kesaksian/pendapat yang

ambigu dan tidak jelas. Kedua, dari 17 total pelanggaran maksim, pembatasan

maksim kualitas terjadi paling banyak dengan 9 kali. Sedangkan hanya sekali

terjadi pemabatasan maksim sikap sebagai yang paling sedikit.

11

ABSTRACT

KUMARA TUNGGA DEWA The Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative Principle

Maxims of The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica Murder Trial

(A Pragmatics Study).

The objectives of this study were to identify and describe the types of maxims

of Cooperative Principle that are flouted and/or hedged by the Australian witness

in the Jessica Murder Trial. Beng Beng Ong was an Australian forensic pathologist

who was invited to the Jessica Murder Trial. During the trial, he had to answer every

questions relevant to his expertise, the truth, and reality. This condition led the

writer to identify the possibility of flouting and hedging the maxims of Cooperative

Principles in his utterances.

This study used a mixture of descriptive qualitative approaches. The data were

39 dialogues which contain the flouting and hedging maxims taken from the trial

video and its script. These were collected through downloading the video, and

transcribing/taking note. The data then were analized by several work procedures

which are 1) Identification 2) Description and 3) Elaboration.

The study reveals two important findings. First of all, from 22 occurances of

flouting maxims, the flouting of maxim quantity (13 occurences) is mostly used by

the Australian Witness because the court situation requires the witness to provide

more information than the judges needs. While the flouting of maxim manner (0

occurences) is rarely used by the Australian witness. It is because of his role as an

expert witness, so he does not like to give unclear or ambiguous

testimony/statements to the court. Secondly, with 17 total occurences maxim

hedging, the hedging of maxim quality is the highest with 9 occurences. While there

is only 1 occurence of the hedging of maxim manner as the rarest.

12

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Research

Language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used in social group.

People have used the languages a tools to interact one anotherand identify their

self. The language is used to communicate and to express all of the thoughts in

mind. Moreover, language also can indicate the identity of personality, group,

or community.

In a communication process, there must be some actors to carry out the

communcation. Some people act as a speaker, who deliver the message or

information. On the other hand, some people have a role as information

receiver or a hearer.

Communication allows them to interact with each other and understand

what others are trying to convey. Depending on the situation and context, the

language could be differently understood. Thus, it will bring some

misunderstanding and misinterpretation between the speaker and hearer.

Therefore, the rule or principle is needed to make the communication more

effective and efficient.

In order to attain an effective and efficient communication, Grice has

proposed the conversational maxims theory to stabilize the rule of

conversations. Both speaker and hearer are expected to cooperate each other

13

in conducting of each maxims. Those maxims are Maxim of Quality, Quantity,

Relevance, and Manner.

People sometimes disobey the following maxims. The infraction of

coversational maxims called as flouting and hedging. In several case, most

people flout the maxims because they are not attach the proof or fact in their

informations. However, the possibility of the flouting maxim is because the

speaker assumes that the hearer can understand the implied meaning of his

intentions.

Therefore, Brown and Levinson has declared the hedging theory which is

coorelated to Grice’s maxims which are Hedging of maxim quality, quantity,

relevance, and manner. Hedging maxims are usually used by the speakers to

give the infromation more properly in the level of accuracy. Hedging maxims

are the speaker tries to give a signal to the hearer that the speaker not really

sure about his/her utterances. For example “I think ...” or “I may be mistaken,

…” used when the speaker give the limited or even wrong information. In

simple words, hedges are words or phrase which carry the speaker’s

uncertainty.

Expert witnesses play a large and crucial role in the trial. Currently, the

majority of civil and criminal cases often involve the expert witness. According

to the judge's assessment, someone who is an expert in particular field can be

asked for the testimony regarding particular issues. Before the trial, they were

asked to swear that everything they say should be suitable with his expertise,

the truth, and reality.

14

Jessica Kumala Wongso was accused of killing his friend, I Wayan

Mirna Salihin, by adding toxic sodium cyanide into the Vietnamesse Ice coffee

in Cafe Oliver in the early January 2016. On 5 September 2016, Beng Beng

Ong, a forensic pathologist from Queensland University of Australia, was

invited by the Jessica’s Legal Advisor, Mr. Otto, to order the testimony which

relevant to his expertise.

Most of flouting and hedging maxims are occured in the informal situation.

For example, in the talkshow, daily conversations and chatting. Accordingly,

the writer conducts the research about the Flouting and Hedging of Cooperative

principles by The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial, which

will reveal that the flouting and hedging maxims not only happen in informal

situation, but also occure in very important situation particularly in the court.

There are several reasons why the writer choose the title. First of all, the

writer have found some maxims that is flouted by some witnesses in the

jessica’s muder trial. Therefore, he tried to study it more deep and

comprehensive thorough this thesis which entitled ”The Flouting and Hedging

of Cooperative principles by The Australian Expert Witness in Jessica’s

Murder Trial”

B. Scope of Problem

In this reserch, the writer restricts the problem to the Beng Beng Ong’s

testimony as the object. The writer divides the problem into three parts, which

are the flouting and hedging of conversational maxims. The first one, this

15

research intends on recognizing the flouting of conversational maxims that

might be exist in the court. Secondly, this research focuses to analyze the

hedges, which are related to Grice’s maxims in the court. Lastly, this research

also intends to describe why the Australian witness flouts and hegdes the

cooperative principle maxim.

C. Research Questions

Based on the explanation above, the writer formulates some questions as

follows:

1. What kind of maxims are flouted by the Australian Expert Witness in

Jessica’s Murder Trial?

2. How are the maxims hedged by the Australian Expert Witness in

Jessica’s Murder Trial?

D. Objectives of the Research

In this research, the writer intends to achieve some objectives :

1. To describe the kinds of maxims are flouted by Australian Expert

Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial.

2. To elaborate how the maxims are hedged by of the Australian Expert

Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial

16

E. Significance of the Research

With reference to the research questions and the objectives, the findings of

this research are expected to have both theoretical & practical contribution on

the area of Pragmatics or Discourse Analysis, particularly on analyzing the

flouting and hedging of coversational maxim and the rethorical strategies as

the form of flouting maxim in the spoken language.

1. Theoritically, this research will enrich the pragmatics research

especially in the flouring and hedging of coversational maxim and the

rethorical strategies as the form of flouting maxim in the spoken

language.

2. Practically, this research is expected to give contribution to the

following parties:

a. The reader of this research ; This research can also be used as a

matrix to make make the flouting and hedging of conversational

maxims become more understandable.

b. The students of English Department majoring in Linguistics ; this

research is expected to give some contribution to the field of

pragmatics study. Moreover, this research also can develop their

communicative skill in using Cooperative Principles.

c. Other researchers ; this research is intended that the findings and

the discussion in this research can be used as a reference for further

study, especially for the relevant type of research.

17

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. Previous Study

There are a lot of researches about the Cooperative principles. At this point,

the writer only shows three of them. First of all, The journal of “Flouting and

Hedging Maxims in BBC Podcast The English We Speak Taken From BBC

Learning English” by Praisya Jovani in 2013, this study uncovers how

flouting maxim and hedging maxim are used by the speakers in BBC Podcast

The English We Speak from BBC Learning English. The result of analysis can

be seen as follows: First, there are 37 utterances containing flouting maxims,

which maxim of quantity takes the dominance as shown in 17 utterances. The

speakers used the rhetorical strategies, such as irony, metaphor, tautology,

overstatement and understatement to communicate the implied meaning.

Second, 120 utterances of hedging maxims are found. Most speakers express

uncertainty and inexactitude regarding the truth or their utterances so that

hedges are used to avoid breaking the maxim also to minimize the imposition

that may occur. As a result, 74 utterances are said to hedge the maxim of

quality. Praisya Jovani (2013) states “These findings suggest that flouting

maxim is used when the speaker blatantly exploits the utterances based on a

listener’s assumption. Besides, hedges are used to show that the speaker is still

cooperative engaging in conversation, and as a way to opt out of conversational

maxims”.

18

Secondly, Sarah Rosalina Burhan in her study “Flouting Maxims In The

Main Characters of UP! Animated Movie” , the study is designed to find out

what the maxims flouted by the main characters on the animated movie UP! and

to find out the intended meanings of the utterances being flouted by the main

characters on the animated movie UP!. This study not only to know what the

maxims are flouted but also to know why people do flouting maxims in their

communication. The results of this study find that there are 47 dialogues

containing thr flouting maxims in UP! Animated movie. That consists of four

kinds flouting maxims, namely flouting maxim of quality, flouting maxim of

quantity, flouting maxim of manner, and flouting maxim of relevant. Sarah states

that “The purposes of flouting the maxims were to make the main characters are

comfortable in the conversation, to avoid other questions, to show pleasure or

anger, and to show their knowledge on something in this movie”.

Finally, Nastiti Rokhmania in her journal “Descriptive Analysis on

Flouting and Hedging of Conversational Maxims in the “Post Grad”

Movie”, this research is focused on analyzing flouting and hedging of

cooperative principles used by the main characters in Post Grad movie.

Cooperative principle is categorized into four categories; Maxim of Quality,

Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Relevance, and Maxim of Manner. The maxims

are flouted when the speaker breaks some maxims when using the utterances

in the form of rhetorical strategies, such as tautology, metaphor, hyperbole,

irony, and rhetorical question. On the other hand, Cooperative principles are

also hedged when the information is not totally accurate or unclearly stated but

seems informative, well-founded, and relevant.

19

All of the researches above studied about the Flouting and Hedging of

Cooperative principles. Altough the researches have the same topic, but they

studied them in different objects which were movies, and TV Show. Therefore,

in order to achieve the gap of research, the writer chose the Australian

testimony as the object of research.

B. Theoretical Framework

This part consists of the definition of pragmatics, Cooperative Principles,

Flouting maxims, Hedging Maxims.

1. Pragmatics

Pragmatics is the study that relates the language and its users, namely

speakers and hearers (Yule, 1996). Yule states that pragmatics is the study

in language that connects the communicated meaning by the speaker.

Hence, the hearer need to uncover the intended meaning behind the

speaker’s utterances which depends on the context. Thus, by studying

pragmatics, people can use language better since the speaker and the hearer

need to uncover each others utterances and look at the implicit meaning

behind those utterances.

In pragmatics, people can understand more deeply how language can

be used to communicate with other people and deliver their message well.

Analyzing language using pragmatics can make the hearer know the

meaning behind the speaker’s utterances. It means that the utterance spoken

20

by speaker can have more possible meanings besides its denotative

meaning. The connotative meaning can be best explained through

pragmatics that the hearer can infer the best possible meaning of the

speaker’s utterance.

The use of pragmatics can be both practically and theoretically

explained. Its usage can be characterized in various ways depending on

how to view linguistics and how to place pragmatics within it. Mey (2001)

divides the use of pragmatics into two different characteristics. They are

abstract and practical characteristics. An abstract characterization places

pragmatics either as ‘component’ linguistics or as ‘perspective’ filling the

components and giving them a pragmatic ‘accent’. A practical

characterization seems to solve problems linked to linguistics function like

the problems in ethnomethodology.

2. Cooperative Principles

In communication, there must be a kind of rule applied to make a

successful conversation. This rule will help both the speaker and the hearer

in delivering their messages and conveying the meaning of their messages.

This rule, called as Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975). Cooperative

Principles (CP) will be explained in its four sub-principles, called maxims.

These maxims will complete each other in a conversation and explain how

the speaker and the hearer should do the conversation in order to make both

21

of them understand each other. The Cooperative Principles (CP) and four

maxims are clearly explained in the below.

The first maxim is maxim of quantity. it says to be more informative.

The speaker cannot give either more or less information in his/her

utterances. In this maxim, the speaker has to give the exact or precise

information. The speaker also has to decide what he/she wants to

emphasize. By doing that, the speaker will be able to decide whether the

information he/she gives to the hearer is too much or too little. The example

of maxim of quantity is:

A : How many children Nigel has ?

B : Nigel has fourteen children.

The example above B gives an answer that makes the hearer knows

Nigel only has fourteen children, not more.

The second maxim is maxim of quality. This maxim concerns with the

speaker being truthful. In a conversation, the hearer will think that the

speaker is being truthful in his/her utterances and the speaker does not tell

anything that he/she is sure it is wrong. By this condition, the speaker also

knows that the hearer expects him/her to say the truth. Thus, he/she will not

say what he/she thinks that it is false. Thus, the example below :

A: What is the Capital City of Indonesia?

B: I believe it's Bogor, or maybe Jakarta, Indonesia has wide territory.

22

B flouts the maxim of quality since he gives insincere answer for A's

question. The implicature of this flouting maxim would be that B doesn't

know exactly about Capital City of Indonesia.

The third maxim is maxim of relation. The speaker’s question is need to

be relate to the hearer’s answer. When a speaker says something that has no

relation with the utterance uttered before, it is said that the speaker does not

observe maxim of relation. In order to be said to observe the maxim of

relation, some of the speakers will point out that his/her utterance is relevant

to the previous utterance. The example of maxim of relation is:

A : There’s somebody at the door.

B : I am in the bath.

By this answer “I am in the bath‟, B expects A to understand that his

present location is relevant to her comment that there is someone at the door,

and that he cannot go to see who it is because he is in the bath.

The last maxim is maxim of manner. In this maxim, the speaker cannot

make a confusing utterance. A speaker is believed to observe maxim of

manner when he/she makes an utterance step by step and clear. He/she will

have to make an utterance in such a good arrangement so that the hearer will

not feel confuse. The example of maxim of manner is “They washed and

went to bed”. By this utterance, we could see a good arrangement of

utterance.

23

3. Flouting of Cooperative principles

The kind of situation called as flouting maxim, when a speaker does not

appear to observe maxims of Cooperative Principles. When using a maxim

flouting, a speaker wants the hearer to look at the connotative meaning of

the utterance and understand what he/she wants to say behind it. Grundy

(2000: 76) states that when a speaker is employing maxim flouting, the

hearer will still think that he/she is following the maxims of Cooperative

Principles. Thus, the hearer has to look for the connotative meaning of the

utterance said by the speaker. The hearer will also know that there is a

hidden reason for the speaker to employ maxim flouting.

a. Flouting of Maxim Quantity

The speaker who flouts the maxim of quantity appears to inform

more or lesser details than the hearer actually needs to know. The

example below will give an explanation about how the speaker flouts

the maxim of quantity.

A: Well, how do I look?

B: Your shoes are nice . . .

(Cutting, 2002)

In the above example, it is clear that B does not mean that A’s

sweatshirt and jeans look nice, but he/she knows that A will know what

B means. It is because A asks about his/her whole appearance, but B

24

only tells him/her about the shoes he/she is wearing which is an answer

that is related to it.

b. Flouting of Maxim Quality

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 that the hearer will have to convey. The example of

maxim flouting of quality is given by Cutting (2002) as “Don‟t be such

a wet blanket - we just want to have fun.” The speaker uses metaphor in

his/her utterance. The metaphor in this utterance functions as a medium

to express his/her feeling towards the hearer who wants to disturb their

enjoyment at that time instead of telling the hearer his/her true felling.

In using maxim flouting of quality, the speaker does not want to express

what he/she really feels towards the hearer, but he/she uses another word

to imply it.

c. Flouting of Maxim 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

any relation to the previous utterance. This kind of maxim flouting lets

the hearer to imply something that relates the speaker‟s utterance to the

25

utterance uttered before. The example of this phenomenon can be seen

in the section below:

A : They’re wet and dirty.

B : Like your mam.

The above conversation occurs in the changing room, A refers to

socks and gets an answer “Like your mam” from his/her friend. From

his/her utterance, B wants A to think rapidly of what he says and to draw

a conclusion that shows the relevance of the two ideas. Thus, it can be

implied that B‟s utterance is a kind of simple play of words that is

relevant to be called as a joke.

d. Flouting of Maxim Manner

The speaker who flouts the maxim of manner says something that is

not clear enough for the hearer or utters an expression which has some

possible meanings. Thus, when using maxim flouting of manner, the

speaker is often confusing the hearer about the meaning carried by the

speaker‟s utterances. This kind of maxim flouting is often used by the

speaker to avoid other people to know about what kind of topic being

talking about. The example of maxim flouting of manner can be seen in

the example below.

A : Where are you off to?

B : I was thinking of going out to get some of that funny white

stuff for somebody.

26

A : OK, but don‟t be long – dinner‟s nearly ready.

The conversation takes place in a kitchen near living room when a

husband (B) is talking to his wife (A) to buy ice-cream for their

daughter. The kitchen and the living room is quite close enough to let

their daughter knows what they are talking about. To avoid the over-

excitement of their daughter of getting her favorite ice-cream, the

husband uses words that will not be noticeable to their

4. Hedging of Cooperative principles

Besides maxim flouting of Cooperative Principles, there is alsocondition

where a speaker tries to follow maxims by asserting an additional note called

hedge. in academic speech, hedging is most appropriately described as either

(a) a lack of competence commitment to the truth value of an accompanying

proposition, or (b) a desire not to express that commitment categorically.

a. Hedging of Maxim Quantity

As for maxim hedging of quantity, the speaker tries to tell the hearer that

the amount of the information conveyed in his/her utterance is limited.

This kind of situation can be seen in the example below.

- I won‟t bore you with all the details, but it was an exciting trip.

(Yule, 1996: 38)

In the example above, the speaker wants to assure the hearer that the

story about his/her trip was an exciting one and he/she will tell the hearer

27

about it without boring them. The other examples, such as : roughly,

more or less, approximately, give or take a few, or so, I should think, I

can’t tell you more than that it’s…, to some extent, all in all, in short,

basically, so to speak, etc. the assertion of personal opinion show that the

information tried to be conveyed is limited.

b. Hedging of Maxim Quality

By using hedges, the speaker shows the hearer that she does not have

complete information about the topic being discussed about as in the

example below.

- I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw a wedding ring on her finger.

(Yule, 1996: 38)

By using hedge in his/her utterance, the speaker‟s utterance will be

understood as maxim hedging of quality. This utterance shows that the

speaker is not sure whether the information about the girl they are talking

about is married or not. But he/she wants to assure the hearer that at some

points, he/she has seen her wearing a wedding ring on her finger.

Brown and Levinson (1990) state that quality hedges may suggest that

the speaker is not taking full responsibilities for the truth of his utterances.

For instance, I think…, I believe…, or I assume…. Or alternatively they

may stress speaker’s commitment to the truth of his utterances; in other

words, they reflect the commitment of the writer to the quality of the

proposition contained in the subsequent part of the statements and do not

28

contribute truth value to the statements as a whole. Such as, I absolutely

(deny/ promise/believe) that…, others take the opposite view and say…,

The issue says…, It is quite right what people say…, Some people believe

that…, So you can imagine even…, In this case..., etc. Or they may

disclaim the assumption that the point of S’s assertion is to inform H, such

as, As you know…, As it well known…, As you and I both know…, etc.

c. Hedging of Maxim Relevance

In maxim hedging of relevance, the speaker tries to connect and relate

his/her utterance to be fit to be said. Some expressions are used in maxim

hedging of relation like “by the way…, oh I know…, anyway…, this may

not be relevant/ appropriate/ timely but…, I might mention at this point…,

while I remember…, etc. These kind of expression used in the middle of a

conversation and by using maxim hedging of relation, the speaker will not

be considered as saying something irrelevant. Maxim hedging of relation

is also used to point that the speaker wants to stop talking about the present

topic being talked about and move to other topics.

d. Hedging of Maxim Manner

In using maxim hedging of manner, the speaker realizes that his/her

utterances may be unclear to the conversation, so he/she adds some

expressions to make the hearer aware about it. This kind of maxim

hedging also functions as an awareness that the speaker does not want to

29

give a confusing utterance to the hearer. Maxim hedging of manner can

be seen in the example below.

It was dead funny – if you see what I mean.

(Grundy, 2000: 79)

The speaker realizes that he/she has made an unintended pun, so

he/she adds “if you see what I mean” to make the hearer aware about the

obscurity of his/her utterance.

30

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

A. Library Research

The purpose of this method is to find more information, in the form

of theoretical issues that may support the writing. That is why the writer

find any reverence related to research from books, journals, and many more.

The writer used qualitative research method. To elaborate the

flouting and hedging of cooperative principles in Jessica’s muder trial, the

writer need the data from the script. Furthermore, the utterances analyzed

descriptively to explain in detail phenomena based on the theory of flouting

and hedging of cooperative principles.

B. Field Research

The writer take the data from the video and script of conversation in

the court. The duration about 05:11:49 minutes and the video downloaded

from https://www.youtobe.com.

Beside library research, the writer used field research to support the

data collection process. The writer used the following techniques :

1. Method of Collecting Data

a. Downloading the video

The writer found and downloaded the video of The Australian

Expert Witness in Jessica Murder Trial form the internet

(www.youtube.com).

31

b. Transcribing / Note Taking

After downloading the video, The writer watched the video and

transcribed it into the the text in order to make it easier. Therefore,

the video and the transcript become the primary data.

2. Method of Analyzing Data

In this part, the writer used a descriptive qualitative method and

pragmatic approach. This study could be classified as qualitative

approach since the data were in form of words or sentences. The

analyzing data was the process of systematically searching and arranging

the data which have collected. The writer analyzed the data in accordance

with the problems and the objectives of the study. The writer used work

procedures in analyzing the data as follows:

1. Transcribing the utterances of the movie into written language. The

writer watched and listened carefully the utterances which presented

by beng beng ong, legal adviser, and all public prosecutor the in the

court. This helped the writer to identify the utterances which flouted

and hedged the cooperative principles.

2. Identifying the utterances which used by the characters. The writer

observed the appropriate data and identified the utterances which had

the case of flouting of cooperative principle. The writer separated

between the utterances that flouted the cooperative principles and the

other utterances that did not flout and hedge them.

32

3. Classifying the flouting of cooperative principles which were

presented in the movie. The utterances that flouted and hedged the

cooperative principles were grouped according to the kinds of maxims

that were being flouted and hedged.

4. Describing the characters flouted and hegded maxims in the utterances

by using the theory of cooperative principles. The data would be

deeply analyzed using the descriptive qualitative method.

5. Elaborating the beng beng ong’s utterances based on the flouted and

hedged maxims in the movie.

C. Population and Samples

1. Population

The population of this research was taken from the whole

utterances of Jessica’s court trial on Monday, 5 september 2016. There

were 326 utterances occured by the all the speakers. They were Public

prosecutors, Jessica’s Legal Adviser, and an expert witness Beng Beng

Ong. It was divided into two type of utterances, which are 163

utterances of the Legal Adviser and Public Prosecutor and 163

utterances of Beng Beng Ong.

33

2. Samples

The writer selected the samples by using a purposive sampling

technique. Purposive sampling is a sampling technique with a certain

consideration of the data. The consideration of this research was the

writer took utterances containing the flouting and hedging of

cooperative principle from Jessica’s court trial to be analyzed based on

the purpose of this

34

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

This chapter is divided into two sections, findings and discussion. The first

section explains the deeper explanation of the research findings to make it clearer

and presents the findings table which contain of flouting and hedging maxims of

the object. In the second section, the findings table were presented containing the

flouting and hedging maxims of the object. The tables are provided in quantitative

data. Furthermore, there are also the descriptions of the table.

A. Discussion

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

51

any relation to the previous utterance. The elaboration of datums bellow

shows the analysis of flouting Maxim of Relevance.

Datum 21

Public Prosecutor 1 : With what visa did you came to Indonesia ?

Witness : I came with a visitor visa

Public Prosecutor 1 : Visitor visa, what kind of visit?

Witness : There is no form to fill.

In this datum, the public prosecutor is really corious about the

witness legality, so he wants to know about what kind of visa that the

witness has. The public prosecutor finds the incongruity that the witnes

comes with tourist/visitor visa. He thinks that the witness should come

to indonesia with the works visa. When the public prosecutor asks that

what kind of visitation, the witness replies it with unrelevance answer

“There is no form to fill”. As we know, it is abviously a flouting maxim

of relevance.

Datum 22

Public Prosecutor 2 : Earlier legal adviser asked you question, you

said that whether this is because the cyanide,

and your answer was ‘no’, so I want to ask what

is your real answer, are you in doubt, doubtful

is the answer or ‘no’ is your real answer ?

52

Witness : I am not really sure the question, but this is what I have to

say. If there a corrotion then of course that should be a cause

of corrotion. But if there is not then there are may not be

corrotion. If there is a corrotion I noted like what you say that

cyanide was only detected in the stomach, the toxicology did

not report that there is any other poison or corrotion in his

report and that is because from I read it, he did not attempt to

look for anything else in the typical toxicology report like

what I get in Australia. the report were say ex-material is

detected no other drugs or alcohol detected. I do not see this

statement in the report. So take it that the toxicologist has not

perform any further test.

At the beginning, the witness’ conclution after the samples’

examination is that the cyanide is not the cause of death. When the

second public prosecutor asking further, he is doubtful that it is beacuse

of the cyanide. Then, It makes the public prosecutor confused, because

the witness’ conclution was make up by the doubtfulness. So he asks

the optional question between ‘doubt’ or ‘no’. Unfortunately, the

witness also confused toward the question, so he says “I am not really

sure the question” as a sign of his confusion, and adds “but this is what

I have to say” as a mark of his next explanation that might be could

answer the second public prosecutor perplexity. However, the answer

is not really related at all to the public prosecutor’s question.

53

d. Maxim of Manner

The speaker who flouts the maxim of manner says something that is

not clear enough for the hearer or utters an expression which has some

possible meanings. So the utterancaes may brings the ambiguity.

Unfortuanately, the writer does not find any flouting of Manner Maxim.

2. The Types of Maxim of Cooperative Principles which are hedged by

Beng Beng Ong In Jessica’s Murder Trial.

When a speaker uses maxim hedging, a speaker is conscious of maxims

of Cooperative Principles but the speaker is not really observing it. Hedge

is an expression used in utterance to mark that the speaker is trying to

observe the maxims.

a. Hedging Maxim of Quality

Using maxim hedging of quality means that the speaker is not sure

whether the information that he/she has is true or not. Thus, he/she adds

an additional phrase to aware the hearer that he/she will not take any

responsibilities of the information. Thus, the hearer cannot take it as

truthful information. There are several elaboration of datums below.

54

Datum 23

Legal Adviser : was that, did you do that in the knowledge of the

Indonesianal 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. This utterance shows that the witness

is not sure whether the information about the certificate is really

appropriate. But he wants to assure the legal adviser that he receive the

certifcate as the legimitacy of his participation in that event.

Datum 24

Legal Adviser : before you go on to autopsy examination, I would like

to ask you, during the examination here did you find

any traces of cyanide in the liver ?

Witness : I think the toxicology report, there was no cyanide detected.

In this datum, the legal adviser asks that does the witness find any

traces of cyanide in the liver. The witness uses the hedging of maxim

quality, “I think” in order to emphasize that the examination’s result

does not come from his examination, but the toxicology report.

55

Datum 25

Legal Adviser : So the amount is very little, could the cyanide be

detected with this very little amount ?

Witness : 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 the conversation above, the legal adviser wants to know that in

very little amount could be cyanide detected. In the witness’ utterances,

he asserts the quality hedge “I assume” to show to the legal adviser that

the report/result is valid.

Datum 26

Legal Adviser : How much cyanide could be left in the stomach ?

Witness : I think it is very difficult to estimate because we do not know

what really happen to the person, but assuming that the

stomach contains a bit of fluid, when you diluted 298 mg over

cyanide, the consentration still very high. For example, if there

is 100 ml of fluid in the stomach, the consentration will be

56

about 2000, so even is some of cyanide has been used up, there

were still be a high consentration left behind.

In this datum, the Legal Adviser’s question is about the amount of

cyanide that could be left in the stomach. The witness inserts the quality

hedges “I think” as an additional phrase to aware the legal adviser that

the witness does not take any responsibilities of the information.

Datum 27

Legal Adviser : You said earlier in your presentation that one of the

symptoms of cyanide poisoning is bright-red

discoloration, could you please explain or elaborate

more on that ?

Witness : The reason why the person look bright red is because of the

way of cyanide works, the cyanide will inhibit an enzyme

known as Cythochrome C430, to put in simple terms, it was

stop the body from using oxygen. the blood on the body will

contain oxygen. As we know, oxygenited-blood is bright red

in color, the blood that where oxygen has been taken away

will be more dark or dusky red. Because there is a lot of

oxigenited-blood in the person who died from cyanide

toxicity, they will reveal.

In the conversation above, the Legal Adviser wants the witness to

elaborate one of the cyanide poisoning symptom which is the victim’s

57

body discoloration. In the witness’ explanation, he uses the quality

hedge “As we know” to assert the quality of his utterance.

Datum 28

Public Prosecutor 1 : Could you please explain how long it will take

since ingestion of the cyanide into the body

orally until the internal organs are not able to take

oxygen ?

Witness : I think that to measure that we only can look at the clinical

presentation and it stated in literature it usually takes about

more than 5 minutes to even a new hours, and I think that the

reason why there is range of time it is because it could be due

to different doses and the health of person. In general, if the

doses higher, clinical manifestation will be faster. If the

person has health problem then the manifestation will be

faster in these group of people. So I cannot give a specific

time.

In datum above, the public prosecutor asks for the explanation about

the time estimation of the internal organs inability to take the oxygen.

In the witness’ explanation, he says twice the quality hedge “I think”.

It is indicated that the witness is not taking full responsibilities for the

truth of his utterances.

58

Datum 29

Public Prosecutor 1 : Did you see on the video, after taking sip Mirna

put her hand in front of her mouth and then

wave her hand ?

Witness : The video was blur, but I think that was she did.

In the datum above, the public prosecutor shows the video when

Mirna taking a sip. He wants to make a clarify to the witness that Mirna

doing some suspicious action. The witness says that the video is blur,

but he approves it. However, he asserts the quality hedge “I think” as

the sign/mark of his unconvincedness, whether the information that is

true or not.

Datum 30

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. The witness answers the question by asserting the

59

quality hedge “I Presume”. This phrase is become the sign/mark that

the answer is not based on the journals, literature, or even the scientific

textbooks. But it is only coming from the assumption.

Datum 31

Public Prosecutor 3 : How long that it is take until the discoloration

become visible ?

Witness : I think that once the Hypostasis start to diappear, then I think

that the color will be lost. In a person who has not been

embalming Hypostasis may last for 2 – 3 days. Look at my

slide I mention all these symptoms in the first three sentence

or points, I also mentioned it at the power point that all the

findings may of may not he present in all the cases of

Cyanide poisoning.

In this conversation, the public prosecutor asks about the time

estimation of the body’s discoloration. Based on the witness answer, he

clearly says the quality hedge “I think” twice. As Brown and Levinson

stated, those hedges may suggest that the witness is not taking full

responsibilities for the truth of his utterances.

b. Hedging Maxim of Quantity

In using maxim hedging of quantity, the speaker knows that the

information he/she has is limited. Thus, he/she hedges his/her utterance

60

to mark that he does not have the required information about the topic

being talked about.

Datum 32

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

ellapse when somebody inhale cyanide and when

somebody ingest cyanide, before they collapse ?

Witness : Yes, Generally, inhalation will be faster that 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 the datum below, the Legal Adviser gives 2 questions. First

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 also answers it infromatively. The words “generally” can be

ascertain as the quantity hedge, because it becomes a sign that shows

the limit of the witness information/answer.

61

Datum 33

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.

In this datum, the public prosecutor asks about the existance of an

international regulation in order to esatablish the cause of death. There

is no any international convension or regulation on death investigation

system. In this conversation, the witness flouts the quantity maxim. He

also asserts a quantity hedge “In genearal”. it means that he conveys a

limited information.

Datum 34

Public Prosecutor 1 : Could you please explain to me the symptoms

of person who died of heart attack ?

Witness : As far I know, they have chest pain then they may have feel

nauseous, and sweating and beat of breathlessness, and of

course they get collapse and die. In most of our cases with

heart attack they just die suddenly without any obvious

symptoms.

62

In this conversation, the first public prosecutor asks for the

explanation about the heart attack symptoms. The witness uses the

quality hedge “As far I know” as the point of witness’ assertion to

inform that the information being conveyed is limited.

c. Hedging Maxim of Relevance

In maxim hedging of relevance, the speaker tries to connect and

relate his/her utterance to be fit to be said. The datums below explain

several relevance hedges.

Datum 35

Legal Adviser : so if a victim dies and the victim does not die in a

hospital, but the victim is brought to you as a

pathologiest, do you have to perform an autopsy in

order to find out the cause of death of the victim ?

Witness : Yes certainly, especially when the victim is young.

Legal Adviser : why ?

Witness : Because they can be many different cause of death, and as I

mentioned earlier the death can be natural, and we got to find

out the cause of death, not only for the family, but in some

circumstances because the victim is young, he or she might

die from a condition that is inheritable. And we do the post-

mortem examination we can advise the family if we find a

63

genetic cause. We also need full toxicology examination

especially if the person is young.

In this conversation, Legal Adviser asks that does he have to

perform an autopsy if a victim dies but does not die in a hospital. The

witness answers that it is certainly, especially if the victim is young.

Then the public prosecutor wants to know the reason. In the witness

explanation, there is a phrase “as I mentiend earlier”, it is categorized

as a relevance hedge. The phrase tries to connect the explanation with

his previous information that has been said before.

Datum 36

Public Prosecutor 1 : But they are taking samples from the body, do

you think that this is enough to establish the

cause of death ?

Witness : No, especially in a young person. As I explain earlier, we are

to look at all the internal organ to look any natural cause of

death. Then we look at the toxicology result and based on the

finding and result, we conclude the cause of death. We just

cannot do one investigation and hope that, that would bring

the cause of death.

The datum below, the public prosecutor wants to know if the

samples is enough to ascertain the cause of death. The witnes asserts

the relevance hedge “as I explain earlier” in his answer. This hedge is

64

used as the sign of the relevance of his utterance with his previous

explanation.

Datum 37

Public prosecutor 1 : You said earlier that the cause of death of the

victim in this case Mirna cannot be ascertain,

how ever you also said that it is not because of

cyanide, is that the statement that you made ?

Witness : Yes. As I mentioned earlier, all the test for cyanide, at all the

internal organs including the stomach-aspirate are negative.

Except for the stomach contains only a low lever was

detected. There is nothing in the test to show that the person

has dies from cyanide toxicity or cyanide poisoning.

Datum 38

Public prosecutor 1 : Even the fact that there are no such a features in

the toxicology report, what conclusion can you

make?

Witness : First, correction, it is not the toxicology report, it is the

pathology report. The second, as I mentioned earlier you do

not just take only one feature, you look at the overall features

and then you can make a conclusion and base on this, as I

mention in my slide, the victim did not show any feature of

65

cyanide toxicity, the clinical features are not typical and the

toxicology analysis doe not point to cyanide and when we

base on overall these features then my conclusion is the cause

of death Is not ascertain and she does not appeal to die from

cyanide toxicicty.

In the conversation, the public prosecutor asks for the witness’

conclusion. Again, the witness uses the relevance hedge “As I

mentioned earlier” to connect or relate his answer with his previous

utterances.

d. Hedging Maxim of Manner

In using maxim hedging of manner, the speaker realizes that his/her

utterances may be unclear to the conversation, so he/she adds some

expressions to make the hearer aware about it. This kind of maxim

hedging also functions as an awareness that the speaker does not want

to give a confusing utterance to the hearer. There are several examples

below.

Datum 39

Public prosecutor 1 : Earlier you have explain about this picture, you

mention that this is a picture of vacuolation of

Basal cell, could explain once again because you

earlier you mentioned that vacuolation is a sign

66

of cyanide poisoning which you could not found

in the report ?

Witness : Let me clarify, this feature has been seen in people who die

from Cyanide poisoning and shows erosion of the stomach.

In the pathologist report he actually examine the stomach and

describe the histology report, he did not describe this feature.

In the datum above, the witness uses the manner hedge “Let me

clarify”. By adding this hedge, the witness does not want to give a

confusing utterance to the public prosecutor. The hedge functions as an

awareness of his clarification.

B. Findings

In this section, the findings were figured out based on two research

questions which is written in the first chapter. The first finding is related to the

flouting and hedging maxims uttered by the Australian Expert witness (Beng

Beng Ong). From the analysis of the type of maxim flouting and hedging’s

occurrences, the researcher found that most of Cooperative Principles Maxims

were flouted and all of Cooperative Principles Maxims were hedged by the

witness. There are twenty-two occurrences for maxim flouting and seventeen

occurrences for maxim hedging. After having comprehensive discussion, the

writer finally got the fixed data as shown in the table below.

67

Table 1. The Form of Data Sheet for Maxim Flouting of Cooperative

Principles Applied by the Australian Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial

Maxim Flouted Occurence Persentage

Quality 7 31,8 %

Quantity 13 59,1 %

Relevance 2 9.1 %

Manner - 0 %

TOTAL 22 100 %

Table 1 shows the frequency of occurences of the flouting maxim used by

the Australian Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial. This table shows that maxim

quantity is the highest frequency of flouting maxim. It means the information

had been conveyed more or less than it shloud be. Thus, the second higher is

the flouting of maxim quality with 7 occurences. The flouting maxim of

relevance is only 2 occurences. Meanwhile, the maxim of manner does not flout

by the Australian Witness.

Table 2. The Form of Data Sheet for Maxim Hedging of Cooperative

Principles Applied by the Australian Witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial

Maxim Hedged Occurence Persentage

Quality 9 52,9 %

Quantity 3 17,6 %

Relevance 4 23,6 %

Manner 1 5,9 %

TOTAL 17 100 %

68

The table above shows that there are seventeen occurences of maxim

hegding. Hedging maxim of quality is the highest number of occurence with 9

occurences, followed by the hedging maxim of relevance with 4 occurences,

hedging maxim of quantity with 3 occurences. Finally the hedging maxim of

manner is only one occurence.

Table 3. The Form of Data Sheet for Ways of Maxim Hedging of

Cooperative Principles Applied by the Australian Witness in Jessica’s

Murder Trial

No Ways Maxim Hedging Occurence

1 I think 6

2 I assume 1

3 I presume 1

4 As we know 1

5 Generally 1

6 In general 1

7 As far I know 1

8 As I mentioned earlier 3

9 As I explain earlier 1

10 Let me clarify 1

TOTAL 17

In the table above, the writer provides the data of the ways of Maxim

Hedging applied by the Australian witness in Jessica’s Murder Trial. The

highest frequency is “I think” that is used by the witness. the phrase “As I

mentioned earlier” accurs 3 times. Meanwhile, the rest only occurs once.

69

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter is divided into two section, which are conclusions and suggestions.

First of all, this section descibes the conclusion of the research based on the chapter

IV. The second one, in this section, the writer presents the suggestions for the reader

and the next researchers.

A. Conclusions

Based on the result of the discussion and findings in the previous chapter, the

writer formulates some conclusions as follows.

1. The types of maxim of Cooperative Principles which are flouted by the

Australian witness are almost all of the Cooperative principle except the maxim

of manner. From the data findings, there are 22 occurences of maxim flouting.

Based on the data, the Australian witness mostly flouts the maxim of quantity,

rarely flouts the maxim of relevance, and does not flout the maxim of manner

at all. The writer finds that there are 13 occurences (31,8 %) of the flouting of

maxim quantity, 7 occurences (59,1 %) of the flouting of maxim quality, 2

occurences (9,1 %) of the flouting of maxim relevance, and 0 occurences (0%)

of the flouting of maxim manner. The Australian witness mostly uses the

flouting of maxim quantity because the court situatuin usually brings the

witness to give more information, whether it is more than what the Legal

Adviser or Public Prosecutors need. While the flouting of maxim manner is

70

rarely used by the Australian witness. It is because of his role as an Expert

witness, so he does not like to give unclear or ambiguous testimony/statements

to the court.

2. In the data findings, All of the maxim of the cooperative principle are hegded

by the Australian witness. They are the hedging of maxim quality, maxim

quantity, maxim relevance, and maxim manner. The hedging maxim occurs 17

times. the hedging of maxim quality is the highest number of occurence, while

the hedging of maxim manner is rarely used by the Australian witness. the

writes finds that there are 9 occurences (52,9 %) of the hedging of maxim

quality, 3 occurences (17,6 %) of the hegding of maxim quantity, 4 occurences

(23,6 %) of the hedging of maxim relevance, and only 1 occurences (5,9 %) of

the hedging of maxim manner. the hedging of maxim quality is mostly used by

the Australian witness, because he sometimes does not really sure about the

level of information. Meanwhile the hedging of maxim manner is the rarest type

of maxim hedging. It is because he likes to be clear in ordering their testimony

and statements.

B. Suggestions

Based on the analysis of the research above, there are some suggestions that the

writer proposes to :

1. English Lecture and The Department

This writer investigates maxim flouting and hedging of Cooperative

Principles in a conversation, especially in court. However, there are many

71

thesis which have used the theory to investigate several topic, but the

sources from the Library of Cultural Science Faculty are still considered

limited.

To solve this problem, the researcher suggests that the lecturers or

stakeholder give more comprehesible and recommendable sources (journal,

textbooks, thesis, or etc.) about the flouting and hedging maxims. So that

the students can recognize how to apply maxim flouting and hedging in

conversation better.

2. Linguistics students and Readers

In Lingusitics study, The flouting and hedging maxim are the common

subjects. There are many similar researches or study conducted under these

subjects. Since the objects of the study is quite unusual, the writer hopes

that it can be served as a reference for the linguistic study.

The writer also hopes that the study about the investigation of the

hedging and flouting maxim can be continued in other objects. So it can be

enriched the knowledge about the subject. Furthermore, the most impotant

thing is the application on using the Cooperative principle and recognizing

the flouting and hedging of maxims.

72

REFERENCES

Brown, G. & Yule, G . 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Burhan, Sarah Rosalinain.2014.Flouting Maxims In The Main Characters of UP!

Animated Movie. Unpublished Thesis. Malang : English Departments of

Languages and Literature Faculty of Cultural Studies University of

Brawijaya

Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. New York : Oxford University Press.

Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse, A Resource Book for Students. London

and New York: Routledge.

Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics III: Speech

Acts,ed. by Peter, C. and Jerry L. M., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics (2nd Ed.). London: Arnold.

Hornby, A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (5th Ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Jovani, Praisya. 2013. Flouting and Hedging Maxims in BBC Podcast The English

We Speak Taken From BBC Learning English. Unpublished Thesis.

Malang : English Departments of Languages and Literature Faculty of

Cultural Studies University of Brawijaya.

Leech, G (1983). The Principles of Pragmatics. In Oka. (Ed.). Prinsip-Prinsip

Pragmatic. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson. Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge. Cambridge Univesity Press.

Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics, An Introduction (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

73

Oktavia, Yani. 2014. The Flouting of Maxims in Movie Ice Age: Dawn of The

Dinosaurs. Unpublished Thesis. Malang : English Departments of

Languages and Literature Faculty of Cultural Studies University of

Brawijaya

Pridham, F. 2001. The Language of Conversation. New York: Routledge.

Rokhmania, Nastiti. Descriptive Analysis on Flouting and Hedging of

Conversational Maxims in the “Post Grad” Movie”. Jawa Tengah :

STAIN Salatiga.

TVONE. “[Full] Sidang Jessica Wongso 5 September 2016 (Beng Beng Ong)”.

YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktD0l3N1b1E

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

74

APPENDIX

APPENDIX I

Beng Beng Ong (pathologist)

00:06:50 after we ask you identity we also would like you and the translator

or the enterpreteur to take an oath before thi court.

75

Yes my lord.

00:07:18 Your name is Beng Beng Ong ?

Yes, My Lord.

00:07:24 Your place and date of birth ?

Penang, 10 November 1964

00:07:41 Sex ? your sex ?

Male

00:07:48 Your Religion ?

Budhist

00:07:58 your address ?

Now I’m staying 10th the enclif, number 10 the enclif underwood in

queensland Australia.

00:08:29 What is your citizenship, nationality?

Australia

00:08:39

Do you have any [of] family relationship with the [aaa][sus] [hhm]

with the defendant ?

No.

00:08:55 You are going to take an oath [aa] according to your religion.

I can take an oath according to religion or through affirmation. (1)

00:20:15 Please explain to us your experience as a forensic pathologist ?

My main type of work is to perform post-mortem examination, and

I perform roughly 2500 cases, apart from the autopsy work I am an

examiner for the royal college of pathologist AustralAsia in forensic

pathology, I am also in the comitee of the royal college in the

appointment of (spesialis terlatih), I am also a reviewer for several

forensic journal, and I am also in the international criminal court of

list of expert for forensic pathology.

00:23:03 Have you ever been assign to work as part of a forensic team in UK

or overseas ?

76

I have been two, At least two, one is to Cosovo and the second is in

Bali, Indonesia.

00:23:35 Why did you go to Cosovo ? what for ?

It is after the civil war, there were examine bodies that had been

touched (penyiksaan), and I was a pathologist under the British

forensic team.

00:24:20 What about your assignment in bali ? who assign you to go to Bali

?

It was through the Australian Federal Police because of the bombing

disaster in Bali.

00:24:42 what examination that you perform in Bali ?

I perform post of mortem (paska kematian) examination on the

victims.

00:25:04 was that, did you do that in the knowledge of the Indonesian police

of Indonesia, Indonesia national police ?

Yes, and I think that I was given a certificate of appreciation. (2)

00:25:22 By whom ?

Indonesian Police

00:25:29 For what ?

For assisting in the Bali bombing disaster.

00:25:45

Could you show us the token of the appreciation that you get from

Indonesian police ?

Yes

00:27:07

apart for being assign to Cosovo and Bali, have you also been assign

to other contries such as Samoa, Singapore, Bruney, and Australia ?

I have been an expert forensic witness in Malaysia, Singapore,

bruney, and Australia. I work as a forensic pathologist in Samoa

apart from Australia.

00.28.16 Have you ever make or have you ever written articles or publication

for journals ?

77

I have published about 19 articles on pathology in whereas medical

journal, I also have published 3 chapters of forensic pathology

subjects in international textbooks.

00.41.18

Could you tell explain to the court base on your expertise, matters

on the case that led to the death of the victim which clould be help

or assistance of for the court ?

I have prepared a power point presentation.

00.53.22

You are basically you are explaining that cyanide if inhaled the

effects will be different from when it is injected ?

Yes.

00.53.51 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 ellapse when somebody inhale

cyanide and when somebody ingest cyanide, before they collapse ?

Yes, Generally, inhalation will be faster that 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. (3)

00.56.10

let’s say the amount of cyanide 100 mg, one is inhaled, the other

one is ingested, which one would ingest collapse faster ?

Definitely inhalation.

00.56.44

You said, you cited in the article that when the toxin ingested the

victim would collapse after 30 minutes, is that true or please give us

an explaination ?

The article states clinical symptoms will arise roughly after 30

minutes.

00.57.27 So clinical symptoms due to ingestion of cyanide would appear after

30 minutes more or less ?

Yes

00.58.59

If a person ingest cyanide and within 5 minutes he or she collapses

could it be concluded that the person collapse’s due to the cyanide ?

78

We have to do the examination to confirm. we cannot confirm base

on the clinical circumstances.

00.58.42 But you said that the symptons would appear after 30 minutes ?

Yes, because of that I cannot confirm that is due to cyanide.

00.59.25 we can see here Mirna is drinking, if I am not wrong less than 2

minutes later she collapses. Base on the theory and also based on

your experience if somebody collapse after drinking something

within a period of less than 5 minutes, could it be conclude because

of cyanide ?

I wouldn’t suspect that is cyanide. I would consider other causes,

including natural disease.

1.05.35 I would like to ask you a question did you find this in the document

that I have sent to you ?

This feature was not described by the pathologist when he describe

this slice.

1.06.09 what is your conclusion then ?

I would like to make the conclusion later.

1.06.33

once again, in the toxicology report that had been sent to you, you

did not find this ?

It is the autopsy report, yes I did not find this.

1. 10.48 before you go on to autopsy examination, I would like to ask you,

during the examination here did you find any traces of cyanide in

the liver ?

I think the toxicology report, there was no cyanide detected.

(Hedging)

1.33.10

Actually what do you want to say by showing this cases report, are

you going to say that if the amount of the cyanide ingested is this,

and the amount of cyanide found on the stomach would be this ?

This is illustrate, when cyanide is taken orally, we expect the very

high level of cyanide in stomach.

79

1.43.38

You said that based on your presentation , you said that the cause of

death is cannot be determine, and you have also erlier mentioned

about the negative result of liver and so on, can you say that or can

you conclude that the death in this case is not cause by cyanide ?

I will say that the death is very highly not to be cause by cyanide.

1.44.24 could you tell us what is an autopty actually is ?

Autopsy is an examination of the body to find a cause of death and

in other circumstances to confirm that the death was due to the

suspected mechanism.

1.46.33 so if a victim dies and the victim does not die in a hospital, but the

victim is brought to you as a pathologiest, do you have to perform

an autopsy in order to find out the cause of death of the victim ?

Yes certainly. especially when the victim is young.

1.47.02 why ?

Because they can be many different cause of death, and as I mention

earlier the death can be natural, and we got to find out the cause of

death, not only for the family, but in some circumstances because

the victim is young, he or she might die from a condition that is

inheritable. And we do the post-mortem examination we can advice

the family if we find a genetic cause. We need full toxicology

examination especially if the person is young.

02:49:40 Without post-mortem change would it be possible for the (cairan)

was negative to turn into positive.

I do not think so. it is not possible.

1.50.40

So the amount is very little, could the cyanide be detected with this

very little amount ?

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

80

sent a sampel and they cannot analize it I would get result back as

insufficient for analisys. (4)

1.52.56 If the result is already there then meaning that the result is valid ?

That is what I assume.

1.53.14 is it your assumption or your conclusion ?

My conclusion because it is a sign report.

1.57.48

In this case they are not perform any autopsy, but they have taken

samples from the body, do you think that this is enough to

established the cause of death ?

No. especially in a young person. As I explain earlier we have to

look at all the internal organ to look any natural cause of death. Then

we look at the toxicology result and based on the finding and result,

we conclude the cause of death. We just cannot do one investigation

and hope that, that would bring the cause of death

1.59.42 If autopsy is to be perform, which part of the body shal be examine

?

I will examine all the major organs. That is the brain, heart, liver,

lungs various endeocrine organs, the gastrointestinal organ, kidneys

and bladder, genetalia organs.

2.01.03 Do you think that for any death respective of the case, autopsy shall

be perform ?

If a person is ready known to be ill, and a doctors is willing to issue

the cause of death, then it is probably not necessary. But for young

person who died unexpectedly. I think, autopsy is necessary.

2.2.27 If you have no idea about a background of the victims and then the

victim was brough to the hospital shall pathology, pathological

examination be perform on the victim ?

I think so, because we don not know the cause of death, we do not

know, there is no medical background he essentially, we have to find

out what he or dhe dies of.

81

2.3.54 You said earlier that the cause of death of the victim in this case

Mirna cannot be ascertain, how ever you also said that it is not

because of cyanide, is that the statement that you made ?

Yes, as I mentioned earlier. All the test for cyanide, at all the internal

organs including the stomach-aspirate are negative. Except for the

stomach contains only a low lever was detected. There is nothing in

the test to show that the person has dies from cyanide toxicity or

cyanide poisoning.

2.05.55 What do you mean by found in a small amount within the body of

the victim. Do you refer to the …. (cairan lambung) after the

embalming ?

The stomach contains after the embalming obtain during the autopsy

examination which is BB5.

2.06.33 While the result for BB4 are negative ?

Yes and because it is negative, it means that it is very, we can rule

out she died from cyanide poisoning.

2.07.29 You said earlier that the because of the reason that you have

mentioned the cause of death of the victim cannot be ascertain,

please explain to us what did you mean by that ?

That means the victim or the individual has (meninggal) by from a

condition. But because no post-mortem examnation then the

condition cannot be found. Enhance, the cause of death even has not

ascertain.

2.09.19 In the case, like this. There are 2 experts are involved, the first one is patholoigist,

the other one is toxicologist, in your opinion which one has a competence to

determine the cause of death ?

The first thing is that the cause of death is usually sign out by the medical doctor.

Wheter he died in a hospital or died after post-mortem examination. The second one,

in a case of autopsy, the pathologist examine the body take samples for toxicology,

and review the result, and base on the post-mortem examination and toxicology

82

result, he will then conclude the cause of death. The toxicologist only look at the

toxicology result and therefore he cannot conclude the cause based on one item.

2.12.01 If this is the case, can a toxicologist determine the cause of death of the victim ?

I don not think so

2.12.17 So are you saying that only pathologist are able to or have competence to determine

the cause of death ?

In post-mortem case, yes. In a case of autopsy, yes.

2.12.49 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 cost of death ?

The pathologist have to consider carefully because it is only base toxicology result

and nothing else.

2.14.14 I would like to ask you question concerning what you explained earlier about the in

term of time, between cyanide poisoning by inhalation versus by ingestion, the

question, how could that happen in case of suicide ?

In a person who has intention to commit suicide, when the takes the poison, he will

ensure that he takes a large of doses, and because of that the poison will act faster, so

in case of cyanide, because cyanide is a very strong poison, death manifestion will

come in very early, even that literature has say that would take at least 5 minutes if

not longer for symptoms to manifest. In case like this when the victim has only tak a

sip. The amount of cyanide though adequate to kill, is just about the little lever and

the manifestation may take even up to hours and death may occure only after this.

2.18.31 Lets us assume that 20 ml of cyanide get into the body of the victim and that amount

is equated 289 mg of cyanide, so how come could that the result of the examination

found negative in the stomach ?

Some of the cyanide will be absorb in the body to cause effects to the person. There

were still a fair amount , still left in the stomach for detection.

2.20.17 How much cyanide could be left in the stomach ?

I think it is vey difficult to estimate because we do not know what really happen to

the person, but assuming that the stomach contains a bit of fluid, when you diluted

83

298 mg over cyanide, the consentration still very high. For example, if there is 100

ml of fluid in the stomach, the consentration will be about 2000, so even is some of

cyanide has been used up, there were still be a high consentration left behind.

2.22.22 You mean how much when you say a large content of stomach, how much, could

you mention it ?

I expect to be about 100-1000 and this has been illustrated in the two cases report.

2.23.10 Lets say if the cyanide after the investigation of the cyanide, the cyanide would get

in the stomach and the syanide will go in the system, will the cyanide be detected in

the liver ?

I think that definitely,

2.23.41 In this case, has any cyanide been found the liver ?

According to toxicology result, no.

2.24.03 You said earlier in your presentation that one of the symptoms of cyanide poisoning

is bright-red discoloration, could you please explain or elaborate more on that ?

The reason why the person look bright red is because of the way of cyanide works,

the cyanide will inhibit an enzyme known as Cythochrome C430, to put in simple

terms, it was stop the body from using oxygen. the blood on the body will contain

oxygen, as we know oxygenited-blood is bright red in color, the blood that where

oxygen has been taken away will be more dark or dusky red. Because there is a lot

of oxigenited-blood in the person who died from cyanide toxicity, they will reveal

(dari kulit).

2.26.51 What about the lips, would not the lips color turn in to dark and blackish color ?

Less tendency for this to change occure in a person who died from cyanide poisoning.

2.28.11 Earlier you have explain about this picture, you mention that this is a picture of

vacuolation of Basal cell, could explain once again because you earlier you

mentioned that vacuolation is a sign of cyanide poisoning which you could not found

in the report ?

Let me clarify, this feature has been seen in people who die from Cyanide poisoning

and shows erosion of the stomach. In the pathologist report he actually examine the

stomach and describe the histology report, he did not describe this feature.

84

2.30.10 Even the fact that there are no such a features in the toxicology report, what

conclusion can you make?

First, Correction, it is not the toxicology report, it is the pathology report. The second,

as I mentioned earlier you do not just take only one feature, you look at the overall

features and then you can make a conclusion and base on this, as I mention in my

slide the victim did not show any feature of cyanide toxicity, the clinical features are

not typical and the toxicology analysis doe not point to cyanide and when we base

on overall these features then my conclusion is the cause of death Is not ascertain and

she does not appeal to die from cyanide toxicicty.

2.32.48 Before I ask questions, I would to confirm whether or not you an Australian citizen

?

Yes

2.35.15 What is the objective or the intention of you coming in Indonesia ?

I consulted by Mr. otto regarding this case, I was given the information and after

reviewing the information, I told Mr. otto that I can assist him.

2.36.12 When did you came to Indonesia ?

I came on Saturday, 3rd of September.

2.39.24 With what visa did you came to Indonesia ?

I came with a visitor visa

2.39.41 Visitor visa, what kind of visit?

There is no form to fill

2.40.42 Do you give consultation and then give an expert witness before this court in

accordance you with your profession ?

Yes

2.41.01 Do you receive fee for that ?

-

2.48.12 Apart from the forensic pathology examination that you conducted during the Bali

bombing in Indonesia have you ever done any forensic pathology examination in

Indonesia.

No.

85

2.48.48 Have you ever performed forensic pathology examination on a body who was dead

suspected of cyanide poisoning ?

Yes

2.49.16 Where ?

In Brisbon.

2.49.32 What case of cyanide poisoning did you examine in Brisbon ?

It is a case of a boy who use chemicals to produce hydrogen cyanide and die as a

result.

2.50.09 You said hydrogen cyanide, does it mean the cyanide in the form of gas ?

Yes

2.52.01 Is it true you said earlier that cyanide poisoning orally will take about 5 minutes or

also hours before death ?

Yes, usually the first presentation that come out is the symptoms, not death.

2.52.50 You said earlier, you mentioned 5 minutes until hours, what do you mean by that, do

you refer to the manifestation of symptoms or death, 5 minutes after cyanide

poisoning ?

I refer to manifestation of symptoms.

2.54.42 In Australia for every death that is not natural, for example because the person is

murdered shall an autopsy be perform in case of that ?

We perform an autopsy for all suspicious cases.

2.55.42 Are you aware of the sociological condition in Indonesia regarding the requirement

for autopsy ?

No.

2.56.11 Do you understand Indonesian regulation on autopsy can be perform or not ?

No.

2.57.23 In your opinion is it possible if autopsy is not perform, and it is possible to conduct

external examination in order to establish the cause of death for example CT scan or

other types of technologies ?

First of all, an external examination is consider as type of autopsy. So if this modern

technology like CT scan due show the cause of death sometime is acceptable that

86

external examination with review of the CT scan would be adequate. In most cases

are related to trauma wheter are extensive injuries.

2.59.45 Are you saying that if external examination is enough, adequate, then autopsy is not

necessary ?

If you mean internal examination, then yes. that will depend on in Indonesia

jurisdiction or the countries or other state that orders the autopsy.

03.00.45 Are you saying that it depend in the jurisdiction of the states ?

Yes, in Australia the death investigation system is different each states.

03.01.20 States in Australia differs from one state to another ?

The syst,e is the same, the corner system, but they run their own jurisdiction.

03.01.50 Is there an International regulation applicable worldwide concerning in order to

establish the cause of death ?

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.

03.07.23 If full autopsy is not perform, I mean full autopsy, checking all the major internal

organs is not perform, could it not possible to establish the cause of death ?

You still can establish the cause of death. If it can be clearly shown from the external

examination.

03.11.12 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 ?

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 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

87

with organs. In general,it is intestines that deteriorate first. But sometimes it can be

some other organs.

03.16.55 In other words it cannot be ascertain that the corrosiveness found on the stomach-

lining is due to post-mortem changes ?

Yes, I agree that.

03.17.31 Is there any possibility that the victim already suffer from corrosive stomach-lining

before dead ?

She might suffer from some natural condition like gastritis but not something

corrosive.

03.18.46 I would like to know whether you agree with the opinion that says the corrosiveness

of the stomache-lining is cause by the impact of corrosive material ?

If there is proven corrosive on the stomach-lining, then yes.

03.19.30 If you ever studied the properties of cyanide ?

Yes

03.19.55 How did you study the properties of cyanide ?

Read up from textbooks, from journals, and also look at images of cases that had

been perform and I also learn form cases that I perform and other has performed.

03.20.35 Only by that way ?

Yes

03.21.04 Do you have certificates showing your expertise on Cyanide ?

I do not have certificate, and I am not aware if there is such a sertificate.

03:23:07 I would like to know your knowledge about the absorption of cyanide into the body

orally ?

Cyanide would enter to the mouth, and then go through the esophagus into the

stomach. Some of the cyanide maybe absorb from the stomach into bloodstream. If

there is time some of the Cyanide will enter the intestines and will be absorb. They

are absorb into the intesting system the first place where it flows is to the liver. In

ther liver, it will try to detoxify some of the Cyanide, but if there is too much Cyanide

it will then pass the liver and go into the heart, well it will be spread out to rest of the

organs system.

88

03:26:12 Does it means that the other organs do not contains cyanide ?

Yes, because the poison is still not pass the liver yet.

03:31:25 In case of cyanide poisoning, what internal organ will cause the death of victims, is

that the brain, the heart, ir the liver or what ?

Cyanide does not target any specific organs. The main mechanism is to blind the

chytochrome enzyme. Which contains in all internal organ and because of that all the

external organs cannot use oxygen. So death is usually cause by the failure of these

organs using oxygens. In most cases because the brain and the liver needs oxygen to

function, the failure of the organs to function, will probably be responsible for the

person death.

03:33:55 So the inability of the internal organs to get oxygen is the cause of the death ?

Yes, that is correct.

03:34:04 Could you please explain how long it will take since investigation of the cyanide

into the body orally until the internal organs are not able to take oxygen ?

I think that to measure that we only can look at the clinical presentation and it stated

in literature it usually takes about more than 5 minutes to even a new hours, and I

think that the reason why there is range of time it is because it could be due to

different doses and the health of person. In general, if the doses higher, clinical

manifestation will be faster. If the person has health problem then the manifestation

will be faster in these group of people. So I cannot give a specific time.

03:37:00 So you cannot give any specific time frame estimation because everything is depend

on the clinical presentation ?

Yes

03:41:00 Could you please explain to me the symptoms of person who died of heart attack ?

As far I know, they have chest pain then they may have feel nauseous, and sweating

and beat of breathlessness, and of course they get collapse and die. In most of our

cases with heart attack they just die suddenly without any obvious symptoms.

03:42:46 If somebody dies of lung problems or meningitis, could you please explain to us the

symptoms ?

89

I think that for the first we go to meningitis , because it is an infection, they will have

fever, and because the infect the brain, they will have headache, and sometimes they

can have spasm of the neck, and if the condition is serious, they can became

unconscious and eventually die, and for lung problem, it is too general question, not

a specific illness, so all I can says that it is probably present some respiratory

problem, if it is serious enough.

03:45:05 Connected the explanation and also with the video that has been shown in which the

victim in this case Mirna, do you found any symptoms like the one that you have

describe for meningitis, for heart attack, and also lung problems ?

All I saw, she suddenly collapse backward.

03:46:44 Did you see on the video that Mirna use her hand ‘like this’ ?

I saw that movement by her.

03:47.51 Did you see on the video, after taking sip Mirna put her hand in front of her mouth

and then wave her hand ?

The video was blur, but I think that was she did.

03:49:07 If a person drink baverage which contains cyanide, so far after you red journals,

literatures, and other scientific textbooks, what would a person feel out tongue after

ingesting cyanide ?

There is actually nothing much on the taste on how the person feel about the taste of

cyanide but I presume the taste would be unpleasant.

03:49:46 Would the person feels something hot in the mouth after ingesting cyanide ?

This was not describe in literature

03:50:40 What symptoms would appear if the internal organ fail to take oxygen ?

Essentially, the main is the internal organ would not work and they will go to into

multiple organ failure, and the person will feel very ill and may go into comma and

eventually death.

03:53:14 As far as this cases concerning Mirna, the symptoms that Mirna has shown can you

conclude base on this symptoms because of the failure of internal organs to take

oxygen ?

No, I said, in a person who suddenly collapse they can be many other causes of death.

90

03:54:02 Is it because the internal organ are not able or cannot use oxygen ? It is one of the

reason for that ?

If the internal organs cannot use oxygen, then of course effects the organ like the

brain, or the heart, then of course the person can die suddenly.

03:54:53 My question is you see that Mirna, that the victim collapse on the video now, can this

because by failure of internal organs to take oxygen ?

Yes.

03:55:32 You said that the corrosiveness on stomach-lining is caused by a corrosive material

that is ingested, that is taken into the body ?

I said that if the pathologist has concluded that it has to be due to corrosive material.

03:56:33 Could you explain what materials would corrode the stomach ?

Any corrosive material, like a strong acid and strong alkali.

03:57:09 You said about strong acid, could you explain what is strong acid ?

Like strong hydrogen chloride, hydro sulfide.

03:57:36 If the substances get in to the body, can the substance be found on stomach-lining ?

Yes

03:58:32 If laboratory test found that no other substances were found except for cyanide, is

there any possibility of any chance for materials other that cyanide to get in to the

body ?

Like I said, the first thing we got to confirm that there is actually corrosion on the

stomach, that is why I always said that we should do a full autopsy. Because if do a

full autopsy, if there is a corrosive material then should be also corrotion on the mouth

including the tongue and esophagus . but because no autopsy was perform, the

finding of the corrotion is only limited to stomach, and because of that I am doubtfull

wheter the finding by the pathology actually corrosive stomach.

04:00:46 You are not sure, you are in doubt ?

Yes, about the fact that the stomach is corrosive.

04:01:18 Earlier legal adviser ask you question you said that wheter this is because the cyanide,

and your answer was ‘no’, so I want to ask what is your real answer, are you in doubt,

doubtful is the answer or ‘no’ is your real answer ?

91

I am not really sure the question, but this is what I have to say. If there a corrotion

then of course that should be a cause of corrotion. But if there is not then there are

may not be corrotion. If there is a corrotion I noted like what you say that cyanide

was only detected in the stomach, the toxicology did not report that there is any other

poison or corrotion in his report and that is because from I read it, he did not attempt

to look for anything else in the typical toxicology report like what I get in Australia.

the report were say ex-material is detected no other drugs or alcohol detected. I do

not see this statement in the repost. So take it that the toxicologist has not perform

any further test.

04:04:39 Is cyanide a corrosive material ?

It is corrosive to a certain extent. strongest effect of cyanide is not the corrosive, the

toxin that causes the inability for these cells to use oxygen.

04:05:56 If a person ingest a toxin and who has the authority to say the contain of the toxin left

in the body, is it the authority of pathologist or the authority of toxicologist ?

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.

04:8:29 My question is actually this, whay I meant Is this, for example the victim ingest 20

ml of cyanide however the cyanide found left in the body is only 1 ml, so there is a

lost of 19 ml, who has the authority to explain about this, is it pathologist or

toxicologist ?

First of all, I think that the volume is misunderstood, 20 ml is (…) have been absorb,

it does not mean it is 20 ml cyanide, it is 20 ml coffe containing cyanide and

according to toxicology there is about 289 mg of sodium cyanide, that is the toxicolist

calculation. This 298 mg cyanide will be mix with whatever liquid that is still

remaining in the stomach and when the toxicologist calculate this amount of the

cyanide, he calculate as consentration, not the amount the cyanide.

92

04:11:40 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 ?

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.

04:14:18 If for example there is a toxicologist says that the cause of death of person because

of insecticide and while the pathologist says that the cause of death of the person is

because of toxins, could it be ascertain that the cause of death of the person is actually

because of insecticide ?

Like I said as a pathologist, I will take in to account or the findings, if I perform the

autopsy and I think that a person die from some form of poisoning, and the report

from the toxicologist says that it is poisoning, just the correction, the report from the

toxicologist said that there is a thickly level of poison, and then from my findings

and toxicology result, I will conclude that the person has die from poisoning. that the

toxicologist has determine. The toxicologist usually will give you the level of the

concentration of the drug or poison. But the pathologist will interpret the result and

conclude that is the cause of death.

04:17:34 You said earlier that Cyanide could be found at post-mortem ? and the cyanide could

be found in the blood, the liver, and also in the stomach, in accordance with the result

of the symposium that you have red ?

Yes, that correct.

04:18:26 According to the result of the symposium, in order to, shall Cyanide be found in the

blood, the liver, and also in the stomach ? is it a must that cyanide has to be found in

the blood, in the liver and also in the stomach ?

Again, the post-mortem production is dependent on several process, some of the

process is chemical, some of the process is due to bacterial producing the cyanide,

93

because of this different origin, the production is also inconsistent. You may find in

the blood and not anywhere else, or similiarly you can find in the stomach and not

anywhere else.

04:21:39 Based on the journal and literature that you have red, how much Cyanide could be

produce at maximum ?

The articles that I showed, quantified but some others article does not quantified,

what they mention was the level produce is very low.

04:22:49 When you said very low, could you say how much, could you mention the amount ?

Based on the article I used, it is mentioned up to 1 microgr/ml, if I convert it to mg/l,

I think it is 1 mg/l.

04:24:50 You earlier said that inhale cyanide could (membuat ) the symptoms faster ?

Yes that is definitely correct.

04:25:14 Are you referring to Hydrogen Cyanide or to Natrium Cyanide that has been mix

with water and then evaporate ?

The main gas of Cyanide is Hydrogen Cyanide, it can be produce using chemicals,

in the stomach Sodium Cyanide will mix with the acid in the stomach and will form

Hydrogen Cyanide. The gas that you mention from Sodium Cyanide, is also the

Hydrogen Cyanide actually.

04:26:06 The aroma to the smell of Cyanide you mention that the smell is like bitter almond ?

Yes it is typically like bitter almond.

04:27:06 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 ?

I do not think that I will smell Cyanide mix with coffee.

04:28:08 What I mean is that if Natrium Cyanide is put into coffee will the aroma smell like

bitter almond ?

I am not an expert in mixing Cyanide and coffee. I do not think I should answer this.

04:29:04 Based on the data that had been give to you by the legal adviser have you conduct an

experiment of Cyanide by mixing it with coffee ?

No

94

04:29:40 You mentioned that cherry red discoloration is one of the symptoms of Cyanide

poisoning, is that true ?

Not cherry red, but bright red.

04:30:10 In which part of the body that the discoloration will appear and how long with it take

until the discoloration can been seen or become visible ?

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.

04:31:48 How long that it is take until the discoloration become visible ?

I think that once the Hypostasis start to diappear, then I think that the color will be

lost. In a person who has not been embalming Hypostasis may last for 2 – 3 days.

Look at my slide I mention all these symptoms in the first three sentence or points, I

also mentioned it at the power point that all the findings may of may not he present

in all the cases of Cyanide poisoning.

04:40:04 Can everybody smeel the bitter almond in ther presence of cyanide ?

Not everyone can smeel, because there is a genetic ….. that some people cannot smell

that smell.

04:41:54 You said that without autopsy the cause of death in this case cannot be know ?

Yes

04:42:12 Can you explain what data that you get for analysis in this case ?

The reason why I say it is not ascertain. One, there is no examination for the internal

organs, and because of that any possible causes of death has not been look for. The

second one, the post-mortem features was not describe or found. And finally, the

toxicology result is not conclusive. My conclusion based on all these points and not

just one point.

04:43:57 So you look comprehensively in to the case base on the data that you have obtain ?

Yes

04:44:10 If some of the data is missing, would that effect your conclusion ?

Of course yes

04:44:45 You said earlier about symptoms before death, in this case what data that you get ?

95

It is based on a description from literature, including books and journal.

04:45:21 For this case, you get the data from what documents ?

I have the data of the autopsy report, visum entrebentum, toxicology report, and some

toxicology statement, and medical notes, and also from the video.

04:46:29 Is that all ?

Yes

04:46:34 As far as the video has concern, are you aware that the video shown a small part

sequences of events that actually happened ?

No, but I believe that it should be longer video.

04:47:07 We would like to check your knowledge first, what did you see from the video, in

terms of symptoms ?

The way I see from the video is that after she is taken a sip of coffee, she has suddenly

collapse onto the back of the seat, and that is all I saw.

04:48:10 Did you see any symptoms of respiratory problems, headache, that or seizure, thqt

qre consistant with the symptoms of cyanide poisoning ?

No

04:48:43 Are you aware that there are other person who taste the coffee and said that the person

got nausea, difficulties in breathing, and other symptoms ?

No

04:49:12 with the additional data is present. is this consistently the symptoms for cyanide

poisoning that you have mentioned ?

It is consistant, but the symptoms very general here.

04:50:48 What do you mean ?

There are many causes of a nausea or respiratory difficulties.

04:50:15 Can the symptoms react so rapidly if it is not because cyanide poisoning ?

The first thing is that these symptoms is very general and can arise due to other

factors, not necessary due to ingestion of a poison.

04:52:51 In your opinion did you know what substances were In the Vietnamese ice coffee

that the victim has take a sip of ?

Yes it is in the toxicology report, and that cyanide was detected.

96

04:54:35 What is your opinion after you know about there was cyanide in the Vietnamese ice

coffee that the victim has ingested ?

Again what I want to say is that I look at the whole picture. I agree with you there

are circumstancial evidence that she might ingest the cyanide, but there is no factual

evidence to show that she has die from cyanide poisinong, and because of that I

conclude that the cause of death is not ascertain.

04:56:31 Base on your expertise experience, could the circumstances evidence that you have

mentioned be use or determine the cause of death ?

It will give me an idea base on the circumstancial evidence, that she might die from

cyanide poisoning, but there is nothing to show from the toxicology result and the

examination of the body. the circumstancial evidence is that coffee is positive and

now that I learn some of the person who has tasted the coffee may have shown the

symptoms of cyanide toxicity. But the overall conclusion, is still the same, that the

cause of death cannot be ascertain.

05:02:12 If the autopsy cannot be done because of the objection from the family of the victim,

what other measures can be taken in order to ascertain the suace of death ?

I think if no autopsy can be perform, in Australia at least we will ask for permission

to get to extract the blood, that is just require small … point to obtain the blood from

the body.

05:03:37 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 ?

Yes, the better sample for specific for cyanide poisnoning is actually blood.

05:04:36 It is possible to get to extract blood, if It is not possible to get to extract blood, what

should be done, and also the victim had already embalm ?

Because it has been delayed, and I can understand it is because of legal system here.

This lost opportunity of confirming death was due to from cyanide toxicity, or to

exclude death due to cyanide toxicity, and because of this lost opportunity we cannot

astablish the cause of death in this case.

05:06:33 You mean that there is no other way, based on you expertise that there is no other

way ?

97

Yes

05:09:04 The question is whether the volume mentioned here, that 0.1 ml is the ideal volume

in order to conduct the analysis ?

The analysis was perform by the toxicologist, and I am not the toxicologist.

05:09:57 Well I know that you are not the toxicologist but beased on your expertise do you

know that if the remain liquid only 0,1 ml, can toxicology analysis be done ?

Again, you have to ask the toxicologist.

05:10:29 Have you ever conducted a test using liquid with the volume of 0.1 ml ?

No

05:11:11 Once again, what is the ideal volume in your opinion in order to conduct the analysis

of liquid ?

Again I am not a toxicologist, I do not the technical details.