Amaral - a major discrepancy.

[Martha]

Yesterday we were asked to consider the 'major discrepancy' between what Kate McCann wrote in her book about the curtains in Apartment 5A (closed) and what she apparently said about them in her statement to the police (open).

What then do Amaral supporters make of the folowing 'major discrepancy' concerning the confrontation of Murat by various of the McCann friends?

From his book:

On July 11th at 10am, a confrontation is organised between the witnesses - Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien - and Robert Murat. Nothing new comes out of it.

From an interview with Amaral in 2010:

Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.
Who are they?
Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.

So - was Tanner at the confrontation or not?  The photos taken at the time seem to suggest that she was not part of the group.  Has Amaral ever explained this 'major' discrepancy to the public?  As far as I know he has not... :-)

Is Amaral allowed to get details wrong, unlike Kate McCann who must remember every single detail perfectly and never contradict herself?  Or is Amaral right even when he is apparently contradicting himself?   Over to you, McCann "sceptics"...

[faithlilly]

@ Martha

The Amaral 'discrepancy' is obviously a clunky translation from the original Portuguese.

[gilet]

@ Martha

The Amaral 'discrepancy' is obviously a clunky translation from the original Portuguese.

Odd, isn't it but that excuse is usually dismissed by Amaral supporters when it is used about comments from the McCanns or Tapas group? Interesting!

[gilet]

@ Martha

The Amaral 'discrepancy' is obviously a clunky translation from the original Portuguese.

LOL.  A 'clunky' translation which omits Jane Tanner's name from a list of McCanns friends names?  Or a 'clunky' translation which adds "besides Jane Tanner" to the sentence?

Do you think anything the McCanns ever said in statements might have been mis-written owing to "clunky" translations or is that simply not possible in your view?

I really cannot believe that that excuse was dragged out in an issue where the possibility of mis-translation is almost nil. And yet it is always dismissed as irrelevant where real translation issues are possible.

[debunker]

It is worth pointing out that most available tranlations have been made by people self identifying as [ censored word].

[DeNada]

It is also worth pointing out that most translations from the 'english' speaking people quotes were from english to erm english and that the others were from Portuguese to english hence sometimes words get lost in translation

grabbing at straws comes to mind

why don't you give us a sentence in Portuguese and we can use translate to work it back to english and compare???

In the interest of fairness

[John]

Can I add a comment in support of some of what is being said here. 

It is my own experience of Spanish translations that the meaning of a comment or phrase can be intrinsically altered simply by poor translation.  I have personal experience of a legal document in my own case being translated to mean two completely different things.  One version was undertaken by a Crown certified translator and the other version by a certified private linguist.

I have no doubt that transcripts or statements which have been translated from English to Portuguese and back again do not reflect the original comments in many cases.

[debunker]

Can I add a comment is support of some of what is being said here. 

It is my own experience of Spanish translations that the meaning of a comment or phrase can be intrinsically altered simply by poor translation.  I have personal experience of a legal document in my own case being translated to mean two completely different things.  One version was undertaken by a Crown certified translator and the other version by a certified private linguist.

I have no doubt that transcripts or statements which have been translated from English to Portuguese and back again do not reflect the original comments in many cases.

And this case the problem is exacerbated as most translations have bee carried out by people who decry the McCanns. Consciously or unconsciously they will tend to interpret matters favourably to their bias.

[stephen25000]

Can I add a comment is support of some of what is being said here. 

It is my own experience of Spanish translations that the meaning of a comment or phrase can be intrinsically altered simply by poor translation.  I have personal experience of a legal document in my own case being translated to mean two completely different things.  One version was undertaken by a Crown certified translator and the other version by a certified private linguist.

I have no doubt that transcripts or statements which have been translated from English to Portuguese and back again do not reflect the original comments in many cases.

ANd this case the problem is exacerbated as most translations have bee carried out by people who decry the McCanns. Consciously or unconsciouly they will tend to interpret maters favorably to their bias.

Fluency in both languages would be required.

Translations have occurred from both viewpoints, and clearly with some errors, but it is on both sides, and people invariably introduce some degree of bias, even unwittingly.

[debunker]

Can I add a comment is support of some of what is being said here. 

It is my own experience of Spanish translations that the meaning of a comment or phrase can be intrinsically altered simply by poor translation.  I have personal experience of a legal document in my own case being translated to mean two completely different things.  One version was undertaken by a Crown certified translator and the other version by a certified private linguist.

I have no doubt that transcripts or statements which have been translated from English to Portuguese and back again do not reflect the original comments in many cases.

ANd this case the problem is exacerbated as most translations have bee carried out by people who decry the McCanns. Consciously or unconsciouly they will tend to interpret maters favorably to their bias.

Fluency in both languages would be required.

Translations have occurred from both viewpoints, and clearly with some errors, but it is on both sides, and people invariably introduce some degree of bias, even unwittingly.

ALl available online translations are by anti-mccanns.

[stephen25000]

Can I add a comment is support of some of what is being said here. 

It is my own experience of Spanish translations that the meaning of a comment or phrase can be intrinsically altered simply by poor translation.  I have personal experience of a legal document in my own case being translated to mean two completely different things.  One version was undertaken by a Crown certified translator and the other version by a certified private linguist.

I have no doubt that transcripts or statements which have been translated from English to Portuguese and back again do not reflect the original comments in many cases.

ANd this case the problem is exacerbated as most translations have bee carried out by people who decry the McCanns. Consciously or unconsciouly they will tend to interpret maters favorably to their bias.

Fluency in both languages would be required.

Translations have occurred from both viewpoints, and clearly with some errors, but it is on both sides, and people invariably introduce some degree of bias, even unwittingly.

ALl available online translations are by anti-mccanns.

Can you prove that ?   

[debunker]

ALl available online translations are by anti-mccanns.

Can you prove that ?   

Both the main sites that archive translations are run by McCann skeptics and used posters from anti-mccann forums who identified as mccann skeptics.

I have not found a site run by pros or translations made by pros. It is impossible to prove a negative, but it should be quite easy to disprove my contention by producing a site run by pros that arcives translations by Pros- if it exists. Over to you.

[Carana]

Does anyone know where to find the original of that interview?

[Carana]

So - was Tanner at the confrontation or not?  The photos taken at the time seem to suggest that she was not part of the group.  Has Amaral ever explained this 'major' discrepancy to the public?  As far as I know he has not... :-)

Tanner wasn't there.


Processo, Volume VIII, pages 1957 to 1958

RECORD OF CONFRONTATION

---- On 11 July, at 10:00, in the premises of the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Portimao Judicial Police, before me, Paulo Ferreira, Inspector, and Dr. Guilhermino Encarnacao, Deputy National Director of Judicial Police, appeared the defendant ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH MURAT, already identified in the file, in order to proceed with his interrogation. Following on [prior] interrogatory work and contradictions having been seen between that which the defendant said and that of the witnesses, RACHEL MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY, RUSSEL JAMES O'BRIEN, and FIONA ELAINE PAYNE, all also duly identified in the file, given that in the depositions of these people there exist clear contradictions with the answers of the defendant, this present work proceeded.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1957.jpg

[stephen25000]

Does anyone know where to find the original of that interview?

Funnily enough no.  The only link to it (a translated version) I can now find is here:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=38782117&postcount=623

Interesting to note the following quote from it by Amaral in 2010

"And it is true that whilst there is no evidence of the involvement of certain people, the fact remains that there is no evidence of an abduction"...

Perhaps this particular interview was deemed a bit of an embarrassment and quietly removed from certain sites.  It did used to be on McCannfiles as the above forum link shows but is not there any more as far as I can see...

So Martha, what evidence is there of abduction exactly ?