Thoughts from a Different Perspective - Day THREE

[Steve]

I am again reading the transcripts of the DAY THREE testimony.
This is testimony by expert witnesses. I thought the expert
witness for RDR did a good job, but of course we must acknowledge
that experts for the offense and defense are going to be highly 
biased. So, I'm trying to take that into consideration.

But the expert witness, in my opinion, out and out lied to the
court, though I don't think the court was aware of it.

In earlier testimony Steve Vander Ark (SteveV) said that he
only cited down to the book and chapter because there were so
many different editions of the books that the actual page numbers
could be easily determined. 

The JKR/WB expert witness said this -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday3.txt
Pg 593-597

[The witness has made statements about the page numbers not
being different, and even if they were, there is a standard
citation format for dealing with that. The JUDGE in now
questioning the witness on that issue.]

THE COURT:  Let me ask you a question.

THE WITNESS:  Sure.

THE COURT:  Mr. Vander Ark says that the various
editions of the book have different paginations; and that,
therefore, the only practical way for use by people who use
different editions was to cite chapters and not cite pages
because a lot of people find that incorrect.

THE WITNESS:  Yes.

THE COURT:  Is he right in that or is he --

THE WITNESS:  No, he's not right in that.

THE COURT:  Why not?

THE WITNESS:  Perhaps it's easiest to explain by
giving an example.  I work on the works of James Joyce.  And
James Joyce exists, if we were simply to limit ourselves to
England and America, in very different texts in England and
America.
Common practice is to give a letter or in this case
you would need two or three letters or an italics or marking in
some way to say English edition, so the letter E, page 110, or
in America, A, page 132.  It's very, very simple.  It's done
all the time to help in exactly these kinds of situations to
give a reader who has that kind of text.

THE COURT:  So are there only two different editions,
one in America and one in England?

THE WITNESS:  No there are not.

THE COURT:  Or are there paperbacks and hardcovers and
what have you?

THE WITNESS:  There are paperbacks and hardcovers.
But what is often the case with these books is that you have at
the back a table which allows you to tell the difference
roughly in pagination between the two.  So citing -- it's
absolutely common practice to give -- well, it's not simply
common practice, it's the standard; you would give a page
number, not a chapter reference.

THE COURT:  I understand that.  But the question I was
raising is whether he has somewhat of a good excuse, in view of
the number of different editions and different formats.

THE WITNESS:  There are lots of different editions and
different formats.  It's also generally the case that you would
refer to -- Ms. Rowling writes in English, and I do realize
that these books have been translated in many, many, many
languages.  But the text in which most readers would be
referring would be the English editions in either England or
 America.  So it wouldn't be difficult --

THE COURT:  I'm not talking about foreign editions;
I'm not talking about editions in other languages.  I'm talking
about editions in England and in America or Canada, Australia;
English-speaking countries.

THE WITNESS:  Certainly in England, which are the
books that I -- the Potter books that I have and that I've
read.  ***The hardback and paperback editions have the same
pagination; so there's not that kind of splitting.***  So you
really would be using two or you would cite two, as is also
standard practice.  I am citing to this --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

It is possible that the witness is testifying 'to the best of
his knowledge', but considering he is an expert witness, I 
would think he would make an effort to have full or at least
reasonable knowledge. Especially when this is a big issue
being brought up by WB's lawyers, though, it is possible
that they preferred that he not know.

The British and American editions do not have the same 
pagination because they do not have the same word count. 
Further, they are printed on different size paper and in 
different sized typeface, and with different sized margins,
and with and without illustrations.

Further, at least in the USA, the paperbacks are available
in two forms. One a very small compact paperback with small
pages, small print, and tight margins. The other is a more
medium size format. These do not have the same pagination
by a long shot.

If this is also true in Britain, Canada, and Australia then
each citation would be quite long and confusing. 

(PS32, CS95, DH132) [all made up]

Would now become -

(PS-AH32:AS1-36:AS2-40:BCH39:BCS1-33:BCS2-39:AuH36:AuS1-34:AuS2-38...
and that only covers the first PS32 entry, now multiply that 
by the CS95, and DH132 entries, and it indeed would be very 
confusing. [A = USA; BC = Britain/Canada; Au = Australia;
H = hardcover, S1 = soft cover variation 1, S2 = soft cover
variation 2]

But as SteveV points out, the chapter numbers are a common
point of reference between all editions.

There is more to this interchange, but it is clear, whether
intentionally or not, the witness is misleading the court.

I haven't reach the part when RDR lawyer get to cross examine
yet, let's hope they understand better that this guy does.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn