Criminal Investigation Process: Bill Clinton and Ms. Monica Lewinsky - Research Paper Example

Final Exam Paper Affiliation Final Exam Paper Introduction This transcription analysis presents substantial and essential information that was provided by the former U.S President Bill Clinton following the proceedings of the Federal jury investigation process. The analysis considers the events leading to this criminal investigation process that entails a lawsuit for sexual harassment that prompted questioning by the Federal grand jury. The former president Bill Clinton was testifying with regard to Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case on August 17, 1998. The first section of the transcription involves developing a relationship between the parties involved in this case in the similar context that is being investigated. Secondly, the transcription analysis undertakes a broad analysis to establish evidence for contact between the involved parties, the former president Bill Clinton and Ms. Monica Lewinsky on the alleged day that the event occurred. The following section of this transcription gives a chronological development of the relationship involving the accounts of the former president. The last sections of the paper entail the research design and methodologies that will be used in this study. The methods that are considered in this paper are significant procedures that can be used by researchers for understanding and carrying out a conversation analysis. Evidence of the Nature of Relationship Mr. Bill Clinton and Ms. Monica Lewinsky When responding to the first question asked by the jury, the former president Mr. Bill Clinton emphasizes to the jury of being aware of the earlier proceedings. Thereafter, the investigation now continues for some time with emphasis from both the questions asked by the grand jury and the answers that the former president gives in his testimony. From the excerpt below, it can be observed by an underline of various words starting from line 3 of the conversation. 3 A: yes sir, I have. 4 (0.2) 5 Q: do you believe that ms.lewinsky was at thuh white house, (0.2) 6 and saw you on December twenty eighty, nineteen ninety seven? In line 3, the former president stresses on the fact that he had read and reviewed the records prepared by the jury in December the previous the year. Perhaps, his emphasis was to confirm to the grand jury that he was aware of the subject matter. In addition, the stress in his first answer was to show that he was ready for the proceedings. From this answer, it is apparent that he had reviewed the records. The period after his response in line 3 shows that he was actually ready for this conversation. In line with this answer, the grand jury adopts the stress (“lot”) in their subsequent questions starting from line 5 of the excerpt. Here in the introductory lines, the conversation is basically to establish the ground for the following deeper questions. The line 1 to line 17 of the testimony establishes or provides proof of the possibility ofs contact between the president and Ms. Monica Lewinsky. In line 3, the former president show confidence, therefore, it is true that he had reviewed the records. However in line 8, the answer suggests a degree of doubt regarding his awareness about whether Ms. Lewinsky was in the white house. 8 A: yes, sir, i do. The answer above is not as consistent as one sentence or a single sentence. Mr. Bill Clinton responds with reluctance as compared to the earlier response in line 3 that he gave confidently with more stress and high intonation as indicated by the period at the end of the sentence. 3 A: yes sir, I have. According to his responses in line 3 of the excerpt, we can quickly develop evidence of physical contact between the former president Mr. Bill Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. That is; there was an organized meeting where the two convened and discussed a few issues as indicated later on in the excerpt. This is because Mr. Clinton himself confirmed that he was aware of her presence in the white house on the mentioned date and that they conversed on a few things. The fact that they talked about her testimony in this case and gave her Christmas gifts confirmed a likelihood of a relationship between them. The reason for putting forth this claim is that only people who have a previous relationship will meet to bid each other bye. Perhaps, the former president would have felt it was inappropriate if she were to leave without giving a farewell or rather a send off gift. All these are not mentioned or explained by Mr. Clinton in his responses thus implies that he was not being honest about the essence of their meetings and those gifts that they exchanged regularly. Conversation with Ms. Lewinsky After confirming that he was aware that Ms. Lewinsky was in the white house on the mentioned date, his responses to the questions helps in establishing that the two met. In line 8, Mr. Clinton validates the statement of the grand jury by accepting that he met Ms. Lewinsky the day she was in the white house. The former president denied talking with Ms. Lewinsky about her subpoena that she had been given for the case involving Paula Jones. He was aware of the possibility that Ms. Lewinsky would be asked to testify in this case so, he saw that it was important to talk about her testimony. In his response, he confirms that, however, he agreed that he gave her gifts as send off. It is important to construct turn in this conversation especially in the response provided by the former president in lines 14 to 17. A person listening to this conversation might encounter issues to project the possible completion of this answer. Consequently, the person might understand the phrase because it would appear to have a hidden meaning just because of the grammatical units that are considered appropriate for completing any incomplete sentences in a talk. Grammatically, the sentence is complete although Mr. Clinton utters some phrases that are difficult to decipher. For instance in line 16, it is hard for one to project the likely response that might have been provided to the question. “16 (0.8) A:nd=u:h (0.3) she uh (1.7) she talked to me about that. °I…” However, the Federal grand jury was able to establish the two, Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky met on the date mentioned in the investigation records. As much as seems to be secretive and biased when it comes to defining the primary reason of their meeting, it is evident that the things mentioned earlier in the investigation records recorded the previous say otherwise. Mr. Clinton does not entirely deny several things that he was said to have done. It is just that he was not free to explain everything as asked by the Federal grand jury. Responses concerning the Gifts Apparently, the Federal grand jury was aware that Mr. Clinton gave Ms. Lewinsky gifts for Christmas. According to the response given by Mr. Clinton after being asked whether he gave her the gifts, he agrees. However, line 22 indicates that the former president was holding back something. “22 A: th- Thatis correct.” The fact that a word was abruptly cut off in his response might show that he did not expect this question. Furthermore, it can be said that he gave partial truth if not lying completely. He did not just agree that he gave her gifts, but he added that the gifts were a send off now that she was relocating to New York for a new job and probably beginning a new life in a new environment. In line to this, the federal grand jury also established that the happened to be an organized meeting between Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky where they exchanged gifts. On his side, Mr. Clinton denied the claim that he held these meetings by alleging that he did remember asking them to meet. Although it sounds like a denial, or rather an indirect consent, it is apparent that organized for them to meet whenever they did so. Even though, he clarifies that the only time that he requested for the meeting was the time that Ms. Lewinsky was out of town, so he invited her back to see him, of which did not decline. Another time that he invited over was when she heard that she was in the white house, and she was preparing to leave town. He felt like any other person that it was necessary and justifiable to give her a couple of gifts, especially as an appreciation for the Christmas gifts that she had given her in December 1997. However, he continued to aver that the subsequent meetings between these two were influenced by Ms. Lewinsky because she began to request them to meet often. These are all denials that can be observed in his responses from line 28 to line 38. The jury could only guess who asked for meetings by considering the testimonies from Ms. Lewinsky and other witnesses in this case. The fact that the former president was not sure who called for meetings by claiming that he does not remember who requested the meeting does not mean that they never met. However, the fact that they met and exchanged gifts more than once can be construed that either of them called for the meeting. In addition to his denial that he did not remember calling for the meeting, Mr. Clinton not only claimed that he did not agree to various meetings but also confirmed that he did not do so [meet with her]. They denials look insignificant in this conversation because there were many gifts that Ms. Lewinsky gave to the former president on various occasions. In more than one incident, Mr. Clinton avoids some questions whereas in other cases his responses lack honesty. When reading through his responses, we can easily deduce that he answers a number of questions in a manner to suggest that he was not ready to continue to talk about the matter. In justification, Mr. Clinton often tells the jury that he does not remember giving Ms. Lewinsky something, talking about one thing or another, or inviting her over for a number of meetings they had before she left for New York City. In lines 35 to line 38, blatantly denies when asked to tell who was responsible for the meetings they had or rather, who invited another but he avoids the question. Saying that he does not remember investing her and stressing that he did not know who requested the meeting not only suggest dishonesty but avoiding some issues that were likely to be asked by the Federal jury during the investigation. Another thing that we can quickly deduce is his discomfort, dishonesty and increasingly avoiding questions concerning particular gifts. At this stage, the Federal jury uses the information at its dispose to carry out a deeper analysis and gather more details that deal with special gifts that Mr. Clinton gave to Ms. Lewinsky and those he received from her. In some cases, the former president appeared reluctant to talk, or he was not ready to share some information. Perhaps, he might have felt that the information was more personal or rather embarrassing to share it with the jury. As a justification, he regularly uses incomplete phrases that the jury could only guess the next statements. Apparently, these incomplete statements cannot be used to determine the intended message. However, one can only use the implied message to construe that someone is saying the truth. For instance, Mr. Clinton tends to agree much more on a few gifts that are mention by the jury and also disagrees providing other gifts by abiding in his typical response that he does not remember giving her such gifts. On the other hand, he clarifies to the jury regarding a few things that he gave of received from Ms. Lewinsky as gifts. Technically, he appears subjective on some issues and things that he felt more comfortable to talk about. Hence, his bias in the discussion is significant because we can see how much his responses seem to differ from one turn to the next. 65 Q: you gave her aye box of cherry chocolates, is that right? 66 (2.8) 67 A: i don’t remember that, sir. i mean, it th- there could have been. i- 68 (0.6) i-i just don’t remember. i remember giving thuh BEAR, 69 (0.4) and thee (.) throw. (0.4) i don’t remember what else- and it 70 seems to me like there was one other thing in that bag. (0.2) i- i 71 didn’t remember thuh cherry chocolates.y From this excerpt, it is readily observable that the former President was not ready to proceed with the questions concerning the type of gifts that was involved here. The probing team just allocated the turn appropriately in a proper way urge for his honest testimony, but his reluctance is evident here. The excerpt is coupled with incomplete sentences marked by abrupt omissions and untapped words in his response (hyphens and empty parentheses). After clearly passing the question, turn allocation is well allocated in line 66. Although Mr. Clinton is ushered to take up the turn and respond to the question, he does actually answer the question directly. When asked a simple question, his response was expected to be simply “yes” or “no.” However, he gives a complicated answer instead for the question relating to the cherry chocolates that it is said he gave to Ms. Lewinsky. When asked something like, “is that right?” one will look forward to receiving a precise response either in agreement or refute the claim. Complicated Responses and Simultaneous Speech Evidently, the whole probing process was a complex process given a list of responses that are outlined from the beginning throughout the entire transcription. Perhaps, the probing team being part of the jury might have expected a more direct process than what can be observed from the excerpt of the investigation transcription. Earlier on in the transcription, Mr. Clinton appeared to reduce the pitch in his voice while responding to the beginning questions at the start of the probing process. This can be proved in lines 16 and 17. 16 (0.8) A:nd=u:h (0.3) she uh (1.7) she talked to me about that. °I 17 remember that.° The sentence ‘°I remember that.°’ shows a reduction in the pitch in his voice according to the turn-taking system. According to Gail Jefferson’s transcription conventions, the use a degree sign in a word or clause indicates a decreased volume of someone’s voice during a conversation or talk (Garcia 2010, p. 38). The degree sings enclosing the phrase or sentence justifies that the response was given either with a low morale, or the respondent had already lost interest in the conversation. Here turn constructional components are essential in helping the listeners and readers in constructing meaning from incomplete phrases and grammatically complete statements. Some of the signs that might be used to illustrate things in a conversation such as degree, hyphen or parenthesis might be hard for a person who lacks knowledge sociology, philosophy and criminal investigation techniques. All these events call for specialized knowledge in order to decipher a sophisticated or indirect message. According to Garcia (2010, p. 49), a complete turn conversation can be created out of one or more grammatical units including words, phrases, sentences or complete clauses. In many cases, turn constructional components appear complicated to listeners who only try to imagine possible completion statements. Listeners attempt to estimate completion of the standard grammatical units so as to get an appropriate place to make a turn for a conversation (Garcia 2010, p. 49). Similar to the particular excerpts explained by Garcia (2010), the responses that Mr. Clinton gives regarding the investigation in Jones case displays the use of many types of grammatical units. Although the words, phrases, and clauses are pronounced by the respondent to give a precise meaning, they do not appear to have a direct meaning to the listeners. In the lines 40 to 42, there is no proper turn allocation between the grand jury and former president Bill Clinton. The brackets indicated in these lines confirm that the two sides experienced an instantaneous talk. Although the previous responses appear to suggest that Mr. Clinton was reluctant to share some crucial information about how they organized their meetings, lack of proper turn-passing reveals that he was more willing to share information that was asked at this stage. Initially, he had said “I’m sorry, I don’t,” then his next was like, “[yes,] sir i was.” Furthermore, the fact that he appears skeptical about himself and unsure of what he answers could suggest that he was hiding something or covering up something that he might not be comfortable to discuss. Hence, he says a word after another without a pause to allow room for more questions, possibly much deeper question on the same subject. When explaining the signs and types grammatical units, Gail Jefferson illustrates that equal signs show a simultaneous conversation where the person speaking says a word immediately after another. A constant flow of words without passing turns to other parties involved in the conversation usually imply that the speaker is more interested in and comfortable with the current topic under discussion. In justification to this, we can refer to the lines in the excerpt especially from line 48 where he says words simultaneously without a pause. The connection of words such as gifts.=but, dog.=so, new=York, and give=’er, is done by the use of equal signs. Either, there was no time for him to pause and give the turn to the probe team in the grand jury or he felt encouraged to proceed with explaining his response without a pose. Sometimes it appears as an urge to continue with making arguments, keep talking, explaining things or other forms of conversation in a talk when you are asked a question and no one interrupts. The fact that he gave lengthy explanations that include various types of grammatical units, and incomplete statements might suggest that he was trying hard enough to show that he was being honest. However in a real sense, he might not have been honest enough to facilitate successful probing given that he often used incomplete statements. During talks and other forms of conversations, people use long explanations just to try and convince someone that they are innocent or only telling the truth concerning the subject matter. Data and Methods of Collection According to Garcia (2010, p. 30), the analysts of conversations entirely rely on technology in creating records of interactions that can be used later on in studies repeatedly. This is so as a result of the complexity that is associated with the interaction between parties and the restriction of the human memories. In order to carry out a critical analysis and examination of data in the conversation analytic research, the process must be repeated severally. It is through this frequent observation and knowledge that consists significant information that enhances this type of data collection activities concerning conversation analytic studies (Garcia 2010, p. 30). With the continued technological advancements and innovations, videotaping has become the most common method of data collection in the context conversations especially during investigations or business meetings. However, audio tape recording was initially a very reliable technique for collecting information that involved face-to-face conversations and telephone talks. This method cannot be used here given the complexity of interaction. Therefore, video recording is the most appropriate method that could be used in this research for data collection due to its ability to grasp more details compared to audio tape recording. Some of the advantages obtainable from video recording method include its ability to access and catch the nonverbal behaviors that are displayed by individuals when in involved in talks or conversations. These nonverbal behaviors that accessed through video recording include facial expressions, gestures and alignment of the body in the period when they make conversations. As noted by Garcia (2010), it can be quite difficult to examine systematically behavior especially before the establishment of video recorders. For the purposes of quickly recording the conversation and saving the time and cost, the research shall entail digital video and audio recording technology. The digital recording systems have not just enhanced the process of data collection but have also improved the quality and comprehensiveness of the available information. Analysis of Data The analysis of conversations usually differs depending on the context and the involved parties. For instance, if the communication involves a phone call, one can analyze the talk just by observing the events that occur before, during and after the call is ended. In a face-to-face talk, the conversation analysis will first entail data collection using the chosen and effectual technique. In the same way, the study will involve a critique of an excerpt that can be obtained from the video stating the exact words of the interacting parties. Basically, this analysis entails a deeper evaluation of responses from one or two people who are involved in the conversation. Apparently, there are a number of methods that can be opted for as data analysis technique to help in the analysis of conversations. One common technique is called the single case analysis and is carried out while guided by the primary goal of engaging current conversation analytic skills to understanding and description of a single instance of an interaction. According to Garcia (2010, p. 34), this method can be an effectual diagnostic method that can be used to establish the source of the communication issues or failures in particular instances. This approach can also lead to new discoveries especially the methods of circumventing the various types of issues or miscommunication. Given that the excerpt and the transcribed talk involve one case with a few witnesses, the single case conversation analysis can be more appropriate. Summary and Conclusions Conversation analysis research is one of the most effective methods of establishing facts in a conversation. Just by listening to a conversation, a person who has the knowledge in conversation analysis is able to establish meanings of phrases or clauses that cannot be comprehended given the normal knowledge. The turn-taking systems happens to be the most helpful subject that instills more understanding in individuals reading through excerpts. In addition, the knowledge in turn-taking can help people to converse effectively with minimal confusions because one can easily signal another person to talk especially whose turn appears next. Gail Jefferson also adds more knowledge that helps in understanding and analysis of conversations. His interpretation of the common signs helps one in understanding the conversations. The types of grammatical units and incomplete sentences are hard to decipher without the knowledge about these signs. In conclusion, the conversation analysis of the investigation excerpt concerning Paula Jones case applies Gail Jefferson’s transcription conventions to add meaning to certain phrases. The excerpt employs all the turn-taking systems that are essential for transcript analysis. In addition, the study established with the help of the conversation analysis knowledge that various reactions of the former president Mr. Bill Clinton to the questions directed to him by the probing team. The most common reactions include lack of honesty because many of the responses showed that the respondent was quite unsure of what happened. The fact that he felt reluctant to share personal information describes his subjective and secretive concerning some issues. References Garcia, A. (2013). An introduction to interaction. London: Bloomsbury Academic, An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing. Plc. Read More