Transcript Questions

1. The use of proper nouns like 'Mr Neil' suggest that they are being formal and want to address them directly rather than calling them by there first name. The Barrister is also directly speaking to him using second person pronouns. This is to show that he should be engaging and anyone else would recognise that they are only talking about him.

2. Parts where the dialogue seems prepared is when things are underline like 'so many times'. This shows that they have the evidence even though he can try to deny it. It can also be emphasis that he has done the same thing repetitedly. This can also make them feel on the spot which makes the audience question him. Spontaneous parts are where fillers and pauses are. Both of the people use fillers but the witness pauses for longer. This can be down to thinking or nerves.  The Barrister pauses to make each point of the story stand out so the audience can understand. At the start both people use fillers such as 'er' because they are just getting started and probably find it hard to begin. Later on they begin to to talk 'normally' and they have broke the stage of begining and ackwardness. It doesnt happen again with the barrister. When the barrister stutters at the start with 'er' inbetween some words it sounds like they are not confident with what they are saying. It makes them sound unproffessional and that they are not confident in what they are saying. However, they could be sounding proffessional but could be reading it off a sheet and not memorising what the case is about. Other parts which are also spontaneous is where they talk over each other. Mr N makes out that he is repeating himself as the barister is asking so many questions. It makes it seem like he has planned what he wants to say therefore not listening to the rest of the question. It can also make the witness sound like he is in a rush and wants to get the court case over and done with.

3. At the start of the transcript the barrister has more power than Mr N as they are directly addressing him by calling him 'Mr Neil' and giving factual information to start the case. It can also make it seem like they are only advising him to reply with short answers as they already have the evidence for the case. This  also sounds like they want him to reveal more of the truth. The Barrister also has more power by asking simple questions before hand such as 'what for'. This gives the impression that he hasent said enough and then they go on to say 'youve put two and tow together' which are also underlined. They have figured out the solution by asking sneakily other questions to get to the bottom fo the solutions. Asking rhetorical questions like 'is that right?' also has power as the jury already knows the answers but want to hear it from him himself.
Mr N also shows power as he has interupted the barrister a couple of times. He does this because it shows that he has already thought about what to say and doesnt need the rest of the question. It also shows that he doesnt want to hear anything else or wants to be heard and wants to get on with the next question. He also gives the impression that he doesnt want to wait until the barrister is fnnished and wants to say his part. Saying 'no' when asked if it 'crossed his mind'. This could make him sound agressive or angry as they might not be listening or understanding him. Also, the barrister could also be saying things that are not true so he has to confront them and say what really happened before he gets accussed. He is standing up for his opinion whether it means refining the truth or telling the truth because they might have got it wrong.

4. The case itself i find is very confusing as he has been accussed of driving a car with no insurance but he thinks Mr Peterson told the police on his for driving into his gate. He also starts to repeat himself for not having insurance to empahsis that he made the mistake of not having the insurance. It also doesnt make sense as he then says 'thats not true' even though he just admitted it. The Barrister says after that 'didnt it cross your mind at all?'. This is puzzling as I dont know what crosses his mind and for him to interupt the barrister straight after saying 'no'. Bits where i find it interesting is where Mr N 'laughs quietly'. This could be because the court room is taken seriously and he ruins it by laughing. It could be down to nerves for being on the spot or that he is guilty. It could also be down to pity as they might of got some parts of the information wrong and wants to correct them.