UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Martha on April 05, 2013, 06:34:58 PM
-
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"...
-
@ Martha
The Amaral 'discrepancy' is obviously a clunky translation from the original Portuguese.
-
@ 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!
-
@ 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.
-
It is worth pointing out that most available tranlations have been made by people self identifying as [ censored word].
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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 ? 8)-)))
-
ALl available online translations are by anti-mccanns.
Can you prove that ? 8)-)))
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.
-
Does anyone know where to find the original of that interview?
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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 ?
If you want to start a thread about evidence for abduction feel free to do so. This thread is about Amaral's "major discrepancy". What do you think of his statement that there is no evidence of the involvement of "certain people"? What could he possibly mean...? >@@(*&)
Quite possibly Robert Murat.
Now tell me, who pointed the finger of guilt in his direction ?
-
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 ?
If you want to start a thread about evidence for abduction feel free to do so. This thread is about Amaral's "major discrepancy". What do you think of his statement that there is no evidence of the involvement of "certain people"? What could he possibly mean...? >@@(*&)
Quite possibly Robert Murat.
Now tell me, who pointed the finger of guilt in his direction ?
Robert Murat is a person not "people", is he not?
As for your second question it was a female reporter from the Mirror I believe who first pointed the finger of suspicion at Murat.
Indeed, the same reporter who was/is a close friend/associate of the Mccanns.
Also, Martha remember arguido status can be reactivated for up to 20 years.
Ah, let's not forget strangers standing in the streets as well. @)(++(* @)(++(*
Now that's magic.
-
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 ?
THere is an old saying in science
"ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE"
And even more important for non-rationalists
"ANECDOTE IS NOT THE OF SINGULAR OF DATA"
And further
"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE"
-
Was it from this interview?
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjoana-morais.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fmiguel-sousa-tavares-entrevista-goncalo.html&sl=auto&tl=en
No....
It's from here:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/OCrime25February2010.jpg&target=tlx_picbkf0
It can't be a translation error as the original is in Portuguese and it says the same thing.
-
You will find that I am interested in the TRUTH, using the scientific method.
If insisting people keep to the facts rather than fantasy, well, yes, i do reject fantasy- if that is control, so be it.
-
Has your questioned been answered, Martha?
-
Sooo... where are we on this issue?
Tanner was not there (according to the police files) and a scan of a PT tabloid states that, in an interview, GA had said she was.
-
Reminder to all posters to keep on topic otherwise superfluous and irrelevant postings will be expunged.
Thank you!
-
Sooo... where are we on this issue?
Tanner was not there (according to the police files) and a scan of a PT tabloid states that, in an interview, GA had said she was.
I think that there is no explanation for this discrepancy other than at one point Amaral was entirely untruthful.
Whether that was because he lied or whether it was because he simply never had a proper grasp of the facts of the case only he would really know.
It has to be one or the other but would be pure speculation for us to try to determine which.
-
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"...
Tanner was not in the group that was "acareado" (confronted) with Murat because she didn't accuse him of being in the vicinity of the apartment before that event.
It was only later that she started saying that the man she saw looked like Murat. But you should know the evolution of Ms. tanner's sighting - she saw many different persons on that night, didn't she?
-
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"...
Tanner was not in the group that was "acareado" (confronted) with Murat because she didn't accuse him of being in the vicinity of the apartment before that event.
It was only later that she started saying that the man she saw looked like Murat. But you should know the evolution of Ms. tanner's sighting - she saw many different persons on that night, didn't she?
Then I was quite correct. If Jane Tanner was not in the group then Amaral got it wrong during the interview either deliberately or because he simply did not have a grasp of the facts.
-
YOU ARE WRONG GILET.
Ms Tanner was in a van, undercover, to identify Murat among a group of man that were crossing the same street where she insinuated that she saw a man with a child. Since she had already done this exercise no other means of identification were needed. And as I said, she only started claiming it was Murat after the others did.
-
YOU ARE WRONG GILET.
Ms Tanner was in a van, undercover, to identify Murat among a group of man that were crossing the same street where she insinuated that she saw a man with a child. Since she had already done this exercise no other means of identification were needed. And as I said, she only started claiming it was Murat after the others did.
I am not wrong at all. You are missing the whole point of the thread.
I never said she was not in that van.
She was not at the confrontation with Murat as Amaral implies in the interview. I am quite correct.
-
Does anyone really think that Mr Murat would have been so stupid as to have done such a thing on his own doorstep?
-
Regardless of whether Amaral was mistaken or not (to suppose he is lying deliberately is stretching credibility a bit I think) I think there's a world of difference between the discrepancies of a first person witness (i.e. Kate McCann) and those of the investigating coordinator.
What purpose would Amaral deliberately lying have? What would be gained? What is the point of this apart from to engage in discrediting Amaral?
-
Regardless of whether Amaral was mistaken or not (to suppose he is lying deliberately is stretching credibility a bit I think) I think there's a world of difference between the discrepancies of a first person witness (i.e. Kate McCann) and those of the investigating coordinator.
What purpose would Amaral deliberately lying have? What would be gained? What is the point of this apart from to engage in discrediting Amaral?
I gave two options for this discrepancy. The first was a deliberate lie which I agree is unlikely but nevertheless possible.
The second is that it shows that he really did not have a proper grasp of the facts of the case.
Whilst the second does discredit Amaral I think it would be important to know if the Co-ordinator did have a grasp of facts, don't you?
If you think the discrepancy could be for some other reason do enlighten us.
Remember in both cases the statements are directly attributable to Amaral.
-
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"...
Easy, about the Tanner I've already talked, and for me everything she said was bull...
As for Ms. Healy, what she wrote in her book is less than peas in a can to sell for those that like canned food.
-
Easy, about the Tanner I've already talked, and for me everything she said was bull...
As for Ms. Healy, what she wrote in her book is less than peas in a can to sell for those that like canned food.
Why are you diverting this thread with such nonsense. It is clear that your opinion of Jane Tanner and Kate McCann is not of the highest. Your dismissive comments show that.
But this thread is not about them. It is about the fact that Amaral has either lied or shown a fundamental failure to grasp the facts of the case. Can't you see that?
-
@Luz:
Easy, about the Tanner I've already talked, and for me everything she said was bull...
As for Ms. Healy, what she wrote in her book is less than peas in a can to sell for those that like canned food.
My word, what a cop-out. Can't or unwilling to answer the questions so resorts to petulant insults!
-
Are you really surprised. You must have seen that kind of behaviour before from people who have no real way of defending the position they hold in the McCann case?
-
Are you really surprised. You must have seen that kind of behaviour before from people who have no real way of defending the position they hold in the McCann case?
Indeed I have, Gilet.
-
Regardless of whether Amaral was mistaken or not (to suppose he is lying deliberately is stretching credibility a bit I think) I think there's a world of difference between the discrepancies of a first person witness (i.e. Kate McCann) and those of the investigating coordinator.
What purpose would Amaral deliberately lying have? What would be gained? What is the point of this apart from to engage in discrediting Amaral?
The point of this is to show that people DO make mistakes of recollection which directly contradict each other, and to highlight the fact that Anti McCanns make allowances for people like Amaral to do such a thing but that when Kate or Gerry McCann, or onw of their friends do it it is used as evidence of lying. Why do you think that is the case?
I can think of only one reason. They are biased towards Amaral and against the McCanns and friends and their understanding of what is truth and what is not is clouded by that bias.
-
What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns. As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?
-
What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns. As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?
Even if it was not his role in the PJ to do the actual interviewing, I would have expected just as a matter of decency that the person co-ordinating the search for a missing child (for that is precisely what the Madeleine McCann case is) would have the decency to introduce himself to the parents of that missing child.
I cannot imagine that the OIC in a UK missing child case would be so downright rude as never to even contact the parents personally with a sympathetic word or two.
-
What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns. As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?
Even if it was not his role in the PJ to do the actual interviewing, I would have expected just as a matter of decency that the person co-ordinating the search for a missing child (for that is precisely what the Madeleine McCann case is) would have the decency to introduce himself to the parents of that missing child.
I cannot imagine that the OIC in a UK missing child case would be so downright rude as never to even contact the parents personally with a sympathetic word or two.
He was made an arguido, himself on the morning of May 4th 2007, in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano. So IMO, he should never have been any where near this case.
-
What surprised me in this case was that Amaral for all his bravado never ever met the McCanns. As Coordinator in charge of such a major case with such worldwide interest did it not occur to him to question the McCanns himself at some stage?
Even if it was not his role in the PJ to do the actual interviewing, I would have expected just as a matter of decency that the person co-ordinating the search for a missing child (for that is precisely what the Madeleine McCann case is) would have the decency to introduce himself to the parents of that missing child.
I cannot imagine that the OIC in a UK missing child case would be so downright rude as never to even contact the parents personally with a sympathetic word or two.
He was made an arguido, himself on the morning of May 4th 2007, in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano. So IMO, he should never have been any where near this case.
That is indeed a mystery. And a disgrace.
-
Some very important info, about Amaral, on this site.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/f55-goncalo-amaral-wife
Along with proof, of the type of person the McCann's have been up against, for nearly 6 years.