Was the translation process a limiting factor in the Maddie case?

[ShiningInLuz]

If you regard loss of possible information, context and (intended) meaning as 'plain daft', then I guess you do.

You are wrong (to regard it such).

If you consider David Payne's rogatory to be superior to his 4 May statement then you're making me wince.  The former is longer than the latter, but it is much more open to interpretation and mis-interpretation.  I shudder to think what the translator made of it when producing a Portuguese version, and I shudder to think what the PJ made of that translation.  Nightmare!

[Mr Gray]

Let's see.  The Portuguese are to be criticised for wanting statements recorded in Portuguese.  For an incident that occurred in Portugal.

Hmmmn.  Not feeling it.

your opinion is ridiculous ...imo
The way the statements have been recorded is pathetic. The fact that there is no record of what the mccanns actually said...only the intepretation and translation of which  we have no way of judging the accuracy of is ridiculous yet misguided posters on here want to some way think they are accurate

[Mr Gray]

I understand the point perfectly. 

On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here).  This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.

I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted.  I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.

And the idea works well.

I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal.  If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.

Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.

Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.

The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.

that is simply your opinion and shows a complete lack of understanding of what is and isnt of any evidential value

[Alfie]

It's bizarre that some people feel they need to defend Portugal no matter what.  Portugal apologists I guess we could call them.

[ShiningInLuz]

your opinion is ridiculous ...imo
The way the statements have been recorded is pathetic. The fact that there is no record of what the mccanns actually said...only the intepretation and translation of which  we have no way of judging the accuracy of is ridiculous yet misguided posters on here want to some way think they are accurate

The statements were recorded in a process in compliance with Portuguese law.

And you have said in the past that, in your opinion, your opinion is of no worth.

Requiring that the statements should have been recorded in a manner that suits your opinion is therefore somewhat amusing.

[ShiningInLuz]

that is simply your opinion and shows a complete lack of understanding of what is and isnt of any evidential value

Show me an occasion when a recorded statement has been used in Portugal.  Otherwise 'evidential value' is a non-starter as an argument.

[Alfie]

So in Portugal it's best practise NOT to record witness statements.  Figures....

[ShiningInLuz]

It's bizarre that some people feel they need to defend Portugal no matter what.  Portugal apologists I guess we could call them.

And just who are these 'some people'?  I have yet to meet a single person in Portugal who comes close to 'defending Portugal no matter what'.

It's another silly idea along the lines of the PJ should not have done it the Portuguese way, but instead conducted the investigation as if everything and everyone was on UK soil, using UK procedures, to UK standards.

[ShiningInLuz]

So in Portugal it's best practise NOT to record witness statements.  Figures....

That's another daft proposition.

If you can show that the conduct of the investigation did not follow police procedures to an extent that would have prevented a prosecution, you've got a point.  The trouble is, you can't.

The Alfie Manual of Portuguese Police Procedures had not been published when Madeleine disappeared.

[Mr Gray]

The statements were recorded in a process in compliance with Portuguese law.

And you have said in the past that, in your opinion, your opinion is of no worth.

Requiring that the statements should have been recorded in a manner that suits your opinion is therefore somewhat amusing.

the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling

[Mr Gray]

Show me an occasion when a recorded statement has been used in Portugal.  Otherwise 'evidential value' is a non-starter as an argument.

some of us are interested in the evidence...that's what we base our opinions on. The statements have little value because they are twice translated and non verbatim

[Alfie]

That's another daft proposition.

If you can show that the conduct of the investigation did not follow police procedures to an extent that would have prevented a prosecution, you've got a point.  The trouble is, you can't.

The Alfie Manual of Portuguese Police Procedures had not been published when Madeleine disappeared.

I'm just pointing out that it is not police procedure to record police interviews in Portugal, and why should they?  Everyone who works for the PT police is 100% accurate at all times and in every aspect. 

[ShiningInLuz]

the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling

Made a pig's ear of it?  That's a serious allegation unsupported by any evidence.

So how about some supporting evidence of this pig's ear?  That would mean multiple serious instances of errors of commission and/or multiple serious instances of errors of omission.

I can remember one instance of a minor error in a statement.

Letīs see you prove your 'pig's ear' allegation.

[ShiningInLuz]

some of us are interested in the evidence...that's what we base our opinions on. The statements have little value because they are twice translated and non verbatim

Then stop following the case if you are discarding the bulk of the statements.

That reduces you to the rogs in English, the forensics, some police reports and the dog videos.  You are not going to get an informed opinion from that lot.

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm just pointing out that it is not police procedure to record police interviews in Portugal, and why should they?  Everyone who works for the PT police is 100% accurate at all times and in every aspect.

Why should they be 100% accurate?  The PJ Files contain instances of the UK police getting it wrong.  Crimewatch 2013 has instances of Andy Redwood getting it wrong.  The rogs in English are sufficiently unclear to have led to more than debate on what was actually meant.

At some point the silly tests you propose will cease and be replaced by some realism.  Or maybe not.