Descripción del espacio físico de la bodega

A problem found in the TRP, as well as the Modern and EmodE courtrooms, is that piecing together an accurate core narrative from testimonies is somewhat difficult. This is demonstrated particularly well in the testimonies from the Bukhaaf group of P.BM EA 10052, as there are enough testimonies provided so that we, and the Tribunal, to see where discrepancies arise.

The overall arc of what Peet calls the ‘Bukhaaf affair’88 _{is that there were 5}

members of a group, associated with Bukhaaf, who went to rob a tomb; Trumpeter Perpatjau, Incense Preparer Shedsukhons, Incense Preparer Nesamun called Tjaybay, Amenkhau son of the singer of the Offering Table Hori, and Foreigner Userhetnakht. The testimonies that are recorded for these men, except Userhetnakht and Amenkhau son of the singer of the Offering Table Hori, all tell the same basic story of how they went to rob the tombs with one another. However, there are discrepancies in the testimonies where each accused blames the other members of the group for coercing them into robbing the tombs. This is what the questions of the Tribunal are designed to root out. By asking every accused a wh-interrogative, or any of the other information- eliciting types for that matter, along the same lines it allows them to assess the truth of each statement so that they can work out what is fact and what is being elaborated on by the accused.

88 _{This particular group is part of the ‘Bukhaaf Group’ as named by Peet. Within this ‘affair’ there are}

a set of thieves who are clearly interconnected. In terms of this particular episode, the Shedsukhons gang act separately from the remaining thieves of the Bukhaaf group, where they belong to that group or not, but the Bukhaaf group ‘muscle in’ on the action. This particular set of robbers will be discussed in depth in Chapter Five.

79 | P a g e

3.5.4.1. Follow Up Questions

On occasion, where the Tribunal need to prompt further information, or to challenge the account the accused has given so far, the Tribunal intervene again. One such instance is the use of follow-up information-eliciting interventions such as follow- up directive to prompt further information. In the EmodE courtroom this type of questioning occurs as follows:89

‘Mr Ward: “Do you know where the Prisoner’s Foreign Letters used to be left?” Everall: “His letters always came to my House.”

Mr Ward: “Was he usually watchful for the coming in of his Letters, as if there was any Thing of Concern in them?”’

From the Trial of Francis Francia (Archer, 2005: 145)

As can be seen here, Mr Ward who is presiding over the trial, asks Everall a follow up question to his initial one so as to gain more information about about Francis’ movements in regards to certain letters sent between Francis and persons of interest.

The following instance is the first of several follow up questions that exist in the Nesamun called Tjaybay testimony. In context, Nesamun has admitted to the Tribunal that he took ‘things of silver’ from the tombs but has been vague when describing these things. In response, and in order to get more information out of an unwilling accused, the Tribunal must ask the following ‘follow up’ question:

Ex.16: P.BM EA 10052 5, 9-10

ix n Hnw=w nA in=tn

‘What things were the ones you brought away?’

It is apparent that Nesamun called Tjaybay is hiding something from the Tribunal as, while he fully admits to having been in the tombs, he is not forthcoming with the details about the ‘things’ that he stole. It is these ‘things’ that the Tribunal, in their position as prosecutors, need to know in order to piece together the events surrounding the robberies, so a follow up question is necessary to attempt to pry the information out of Nesamun. As will be shown in Chapter Six, the interactions between Nesamun and Tribunal are numerous. There are several follow up questions that come after this in the testimony where the Tribunal attempt to deconstruct Nesamun’s

80 | P a g e

answers by asking further questions that lead him away from vague answers into something more concrete.

Another example of a follow-up directive comes from the testimony of Townswoman Ese, where Ese has been brought before the Tribunal because they believe that she may have information about her husband’s involvement in the robberies. Ese replies to this question with a denial phrase, stating that she has not seen the silver at all. The Tribunal then ask her this follow up question:

Ex.17: P.BM EA 10052 10, 14-15

Dd n=s sS DHwty-ms ix pA sxr in i-ir=t nA bAki i-in=t

‘The Scribe Thutmose said to her “How did you buy the servants which you bought?”’

It is evident that the Tribunal are asking her this question because they have had information provided elsewhere90 _{and have a chance to interrogate her since she has}

denied even having the silver. This question is impolite, as it infers that she is lying about the silver and has been so bold as to buy servants with it. It therefore challenges her to clarify how she came by these servants, and provide them with an explanation that shows she bought them via legal means. In this way, the Tribunal uses a follow up question to pick holes in an accused’s testimony to ultimately prove that the accused is guilty of tomb robbery, or possession of silver. In context, the servant of Ese is brought and he testifies how Ese’s husband bought him. The fate of Ese is unknown.

Trumpeter Perpatjau has been brought before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal believe he is involved with the Shedsukhons group, and therefore desire him to corroborate or provide additional information as to who was with him and the other thieves:

Ex.18: P.BM EA 10052 4, 3

Dd.tw n=f i-Dd n=i rmT nb i-sDm=k i-ptr=k

‘He was asked, “Tell to me every man which you heard, and which you saw.”’

90 _{This is an indicator that the Tribunal is not a ‘blank slate’ but are already in possession of}

considerable amounts of knowledge or suspicions. There is no indication that all this knowledge comes from previous testimonies, and, of course, in the Modern era much of an investigation takes place before and outside of the court system. In like manner it seems, from the Abbott Dockets, that Paweraa, as Governor of the West, lead an investigation which later led to the Tribunal meetings of which we now have record.

81 | P a g e

Unlike Ese, above, Perpatjau replies to the above with an ‘acceptance’ answer, whereby he relates the story of who robbed the tomb, and what they stole, thus providing the Tribunal with the information that they seek. This speech act on behalf of the Tribunal can be considered impolite, as instead of asking who was involved they demand the information from the accused.