We want to thank Anne for attending the libel hearings.

[gilet]

I sent two pics of my notes to John, in order to satisfy some posters' legitimate curiosity. Unfortunately I'm the only one who can understand them, thanks to a memory that will be erased in a short time. John corrects my clumsinesses in English so that reading is easier for you. Sometimes, rarely, he's not sure about what I wrote or misunderstood and I reformulate it. After he edited, he sends the report back and I rectify before sending him again. Sometimes he again has doubts and sends me to check.

Nonetheless, the fullest understanding of the court case by the reader here would be achieved by reference to all the available documentation.

Having, personally, worked in the past on Mediaeval court financial records I know only too well that brief notes can be difficult to understand but when related forward to the financial reports which they predated, they were able to explain the direction of thought in a way which the report alone could not.

[John]

Nonetheless, the fullest understanding of the court case by the reader here would be achieved by reference to all the available documentation.

Having, personally, worked in the past on Mediaeval court financial records I know only too well that brief notes can be difficult to understand but when related forward to the financial reports which they predated, they were able to explain the direction of thought in a way which the report alone could not.

It is an offence to misrepresent a witness at trial.  QED

[gilet]

It is an offence to misrepresent a witness at trial.  QED

I presume you mean by QED, "Quo errat demonstrator"!

Because there is no logical proof that Anne's report is error free by reference to the fact that there happens to be a law which prohibits misrepresenting witnesses. 

It may well be her intent to remain error free but the existence of the law and even the attempt to adhere to the law does not prove her reports have achieved that goal.

Without the full record of the writing of the reports we can not be sure how much was reliance on memory or notes and cannot be sure how much influence the editor had on the final document.

In the interest of full truth there would appear to be very good reason for allowing us to see all the documentation.

What would be the reason for refusal?

[Lyall]

Is there any difference between Anne's notes and a report by a journalist in a paper, gilet?

I don't think there is.

I don't see the problem. >@@(*&)

[John]

I presume you mean by QED, "Quo errat demonstrator"!

Because there is no logical proof that Anne's report is error free by reference to the fact that there happens to be a law which prohibits misrepresenting witnesses. 

It may well be her intent to remain error free but the existence of the law and even the attempt to adhere to the law does not prove her reports have achieved that goal.

Without the full record of the writing of the reports we can not be sure how much was reliance on memory or notes and cannot be sure how much influence the editor had on the final document.

In the interest of full truth there would appear to be very good reason for allowing us to see all the documentation.

What would be the reason for refusal?

Because you couldn't interpret them even if you wanted to.

[icabodcrane]

I presume you mean by QED, "Quo errat demonstrator"!

Because there is no logical proof that Anne's report is error free by reference to the fact that there happens to be a law which prohibits misrepresenting witnesses. 

It may well be her intent to remain error free but the existence of the law and even the attempt to adhere the law does not prove her reports have achieved that goal.

Without the full record of the writing of the reports we can not be sure how much was reliance on memory or notes and cannot be sure how much influence the editor had on the final document.

In the interest of full truth there would appear to be very good reason for allowing us to see all the documentation.

What would be the reason for refusal?

oh for heaven's sake stop it !

You don't want to see Anne's notes or John's editing process in the  'interests of full truth'  ...  you want to take it back to the nasty  forums where it can be picked over by  vultures,   with lots of rolling on the floor smilies as Anne's less than perfect English is   ridiculed and laughed at 

Why can't you just accept that this forum has managed to obtain exclusive detailed information, and be grateful that it is being generously shared  with others

[Mr Gray]

There is no problem, those who wish to take Annes reports as 100% accurate are free to do so...and those who think their may be errors are also free to do so

[Lyall]

There is no problem, those who wish to take Annes reports as 100% accurate are free to do so...and those who think their may be errors are also free to do so

Who is claiming they are 100% accurate? Who claims a report by a journalist is?

Historians will tell us there's no such thing as 100%.

[Rachel Granada]

There is no problem, those who wish to take Annes reports as 100% accurate are free to do so...and those who think their may be errors are also free to do so

A good summation, davel.

[AnneGuedes]

I presume you mean by QED, "Quo errat demonstrator"!

quod erat demonstrandum

[Rachel Granada]

quod erat demonstrandum

Don't mention The Quo, Anne!

"Down down, deeper and down...."!!

[gilet]

quod erat demonstrandum

Not in this case it wasn't.

That is precisely why I changed the wording to demonstrate that it was not QED.

Did you not read the post?

There is no way that stating there is a law which forbids misrepresentation of witnesses can be claimed as proof that the reports on this forum are accurate.

Only a verbatim record can be considered accurate.

All other reports are less than accurate and the more stages they go through the less accurate they become.

Notes, drafting from notes and adding sections from memory alone, followed by editing of the draft by a second person and errors are bound to occur no matter how much effort is put into the work, how expert the people are at the work (and court reporting is a very specific skill as is document editing).

My point that the reports are the best available stands, as does my further point that the reader would benefit from a fuller picture by seeing the notes and the original draft.

[gilet]

Who is claiming they are 100% accurate? Who claims a report by a journalist is?

Historians will tell us there's no such thing as 100%.

A pernickety historian will, quite rightly, state that even a verbatim report is not a 100% accurate record of a trial as facial expression, vocal expression, body movement etc all should form part of that record for it to be 100% accurate.

[Redblossom]

A pernickety historian will, quite rightly, state that even a verbatim report is not a 100% accurate record of a trial as facial expression, vocal expression, body movement etc all should form part of that record for it to be 100% accurate.

Dont  be so silly, Annes notes and reports of what went on in court is not going to be any bloody historical document!!!!
 


Feel  free to forensically examine her notes though instead of just LISTENING!!!
 

[Cariad]

I'd just like to add my thanks too. The time and effort that it must take is remarkable. I'm very grateful to you Anne for all the hard work!

Cariad.