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: Robittybob1 on January 10, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
-
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
That doesn't sound like Gerry talking but it could be a summary of what he said, but did he really say that?
It is from his 4th of May statement. Was he of the belief that Kate used the front door? He wasn't there to observe that so that at best is his understanding.
Kate in her 4th May statement makes it very plain "At around 10 pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."
So what is the reason Gerry's statement has this glaring error in it?
-
Carana has put the error down to a misunderstanding http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8237.msg408420#msg408420
"We have an entire thread on the front / back door debate. IMO, it IS quite likely a translation / lost-in-confusion issue. Gerry was the first to be interviewed after very little sleep, by a police officer coming to grips with the situation and who took the bare minimum of notes, with whoever they could grab at that time of the morning to serve as an interpreter. The officer in question doesn't appear to have been one of the ones at the scene the previous evening and I can't find any indication that he understood the layout of the flat."
I understand Carana is blaming the inspector writing the notes, not what Gerry has said may have happened.
-
So the well quoted correction does not alter the fact that Kate entered by the front door!
"----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
All the time I was under the impression he was making an error about what door he entered but in fact the real controversy is over what door Kate entered, is that right?
Here Benice makes out it is Gerry who is changing his statement but I don't see it like that anymore. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7180.msg329380#msg329380
Quote: "But it still doesn't give the reason WHY he changed his statement. " The truth is Gerry didn't change his statement!
Well he might have changed it but changed it about what?
He doesn't say what door he left by in his 4th May statement: "The witness and his wife, between this time and 20.30 stayed in the apartment relaxing and drinking a glass of wine. After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner."
-
If Gerry thought Kate had used the front door he would have had to hand her the one and only key. Did he do that?
if he didn't do that it is not possible for Kate to have gone through the front door.
-
Again Benice is defending Gerry and putting the blame on the process. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6414.msg254187#msg254187
"IMO the first interview was rife for misunderstandings. Gerry had had no sleep and was still in massive shock. Any idea that he was cool calm and collected is absurd IMO. There would be delays because of the necessity for translations -- and IIRC his replies were then typed out by the Police officer at the time. AT that early point and in those circumstances then IMO Gerry would find concentration very difficult and he would still be hoping and praying that news that Madeleine had been found would come at any minute.
There is no credible reason that I can think of why anyone would lie about which doors they used. What would they have to gain by doing that?
On the other hand we know for definite that different people had different opinions on which door constituted the front door and which door they regarded as the back door. It seem obvious to me that until they sorted that out then major confusion was inevitable during interviews.
IMO that was sorted out at Gerry's second interview. "
I take that it wasn't sorted out, for what does Gerry say about Kate entering the apartment in the second interview?
"----- Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house." OK this time Kate enters by the rear door.
How often does he use the expression rear door (quite often enough to establish it was the sliding door).
"----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.
----- He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without seeing the children of any other family because he had not been asked to by them."
So not only is Kate now coming through the rear door so is he.
So I I have to admit I was wrong for the second time, Gerry said in his first statement he used the key yet in his second he comes in via the sliding door.
-
I'm in two minds as to which statement I believe. In my heart I think the first one is correct about the door he enters, but he may have aligned with Kate on the 10th for some unknown reason.
-
Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
snip
With the intense study on these doors there was nothing stopping the McCanns from deadlocking the front door from the inside.
"while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door" is not logical. It is unlikely to be locked (deadlocked) simply because they hadn't inserted the key and rotated it twice to extend the deadlock bolt. Maybe they weren't aware that that could be done, or they may have been concerned for the safety of the kids in case of a fire? Who knows?
-
Gerry McCann gave two accounts.
1. That he entered through the front door which was locked using his key to open it.
2. That he entered through the patio/side/back door which was lying unlocked.
Both can't be right. http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCann_Key_Detail_Wrong.html
I disagree with this blogger on two accounts.
1. "***He exits the apartment presumably by the front door the way he had entered, securing the apartment once more! ****"
Correction:
No need to make presumptions it is in the statements. They left at all times via the patio door.
2. "But why would he have exited by the patio/side door if he had entered by the front? By doing so he is not able to then secure the apartment as it had been previously***"
Correction:
Just closing the door is all they did the first time and exactly the same the second time it was closed
-
Carana has put the error down to a misunderstanding http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8237.msg408420#msg408420
"We have an entire thread on the front / back door debate. IMO, it IS quite likely a translation / lost-in-confusion issue. Gerry was the first to be interviewed after very little sleep, by a police officer coming to grips with the situation and who took the bare minimum of notes, with whoever they could grab at that time of the morning to serve as an interpreter. The officer in question doesn't appear to have been one of the ones at the scene the previous evening and I can't find any indication that he understood the layout of the flat."
I understand Carana is blaming the inspector writing the notes, not what Gerry has said may have happened.
I'm not blaming the inspector - one or all three could have been muddled.
My understanding of how this could have come about:
Gerry was the first to be interviewed, yet he wasn't asked to do a drawing of the layout in the files (which officers didn't start doing until later over other details).
The officer would have wanted to know how many doors there were.
So... fact established: 2 doors. One slides and wasn't fully shut; the other needed a key to get in. The interpreter and / or the inspector could have scribbled down a note to that effect.
Then: "Which door did you use?" Gerry could well have said the front door, but meaning the closest one - i.e., the verandah.
But the inspector / interpreter could have assumed that that meant the main roadside entrance and "using his respective key, the door being locked" got added, with checking whether all three were talking about the same door.
An unknown is whether the interpreter read back every word of the statement, or whether she simply read out what she thought were the main details.
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.
Then:
At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. (It wasn't the door that was located laterally, it was the steps leading up to it).
What is written in Gerry's statement re Kate's check:
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key (...) The side door leading to the living room was closed, which as previously stated, was never left locked."
For some reason, at the time the inspector didn't think to ask why he would have gone the long way round, particularly when he needed to go to the loo, yet in the same statement, it was stated that Matt went in via the verandah door (which didn't need a key) and why Kate would have also gone the long way round when the verandah door wasn't locked and was nearest to them.
Later, in Jane's rog, there was an allusion to confusion over which constituted the back and the front, so the officer suggested using poolside and roadside to make it clearer:
4078 “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “If we were to say poolside and roadside, would that make it clearer as to what I was referring to?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah.”
4078 “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?”
Reply “For checking or for anything?”
4078 “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?”
Reply “Err the back, the roadside entrance because you couldn’t actually get in to the err the poolside entrance but there was no key to get in from the outside so you could only get in there if it was unlocked. It was sort of like a, you know like patio doors have a…”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “Thing that goes up and down.”
4078 “Oh right.”
Reply “So the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance is during the day if somebody else was in there already.”
4078 “Okay, so when you went out for your meal…”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “In the evening, the poolside door was always locked in your apartment.”
Reply “Yeah, yeah.”
4078 “So when you did your treks you had to go in through the roadside?”
Reply “Back, yeah through the back door.”
-
I find the title a bit misleading: Kate didn't say she went in via the front door.
Around 9.30pm was the time the interviewee should have gone to see her children, but her friend Matt (a member of the group) had just done a check in his apartment then gone to the interviewee's. He had entered the apartment by a glass sliding side door, that was always unlocked and once inside had not gone into the children's bedroom. He only looked through the door, and did not hear any noise. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
-
I'm not blaming the inspector - one or all three could have been muddled.
My understanding of how this could have come about:
Gerry was the first to be interviewed, yet he wasn't asked to do a drawing of the layout in the files (which officers didn't start doing until later over other details).
The officer would have wanted to know how many doors there were.
So... fact established: 2 doors. One slides and wasn't fully shut; the other needed a key to get in. The interpreter and / or the inspector could have scribbled down a note to that effect.
Then: "Which door did you use?" Gerry could well have said the front door, but meaning the closest one - i.e., the verandah.
But the inspector / interpreter could have assumed that that meant the main roadside entrance and "using his respective key, the door being locked" got added, with checking whether all three were talking about the same door.
An unknown is whether the interpreter read back every word of the statement, or whether she simply read out what she thought were the main details.
In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.
Then:
At about 21.30 his friend Matt (member of the group) went to the apartment, where his children were and on his way went to the witness' apartment, entering by means of a glass sliding door that was always unlocked and was located laterally to the building. (It wasn't the door that was located laterally, it was the steps leading up to it).
What is written in Gerry's statement re Kate's check:
"At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key (...) The side door leading to the living room was closed, which as previously stated, was never left locked."
For some reason, at the time the inspector didn't think to ask why he would have gone the long way round, particularly when he needed to go to the loo, yet in the same statement, it was stated that Matt went in via the verandah door (which didn't need a key) and why Kate would have also gone the long way round when the verandah door wasn't locked and was nearest to them.
Later, in Jane's rog, there was an allusion to confusion over which constituted the back and the front, so the officer suggested using poolside and roadside to make it clearer:
4078 “And what was, if you were to go in through the, well I know we’ve discussed this in the office and it’s difficult to say the front door or the back door of the apartment because there’s some confusion.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “If we were to say poolside and roadside, would that make it clearer as to what I was referring to?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah.”
4078 “Which, which entrance did you use mostly?”
Reply “For checking or for anything?”
4078 “For anything. Was there a check, that you’d use mostly?”
Reply “Err the back, the roadside entrance because you couldn’t actually get in to the err the poolside entrance but there was no key to get in from the outside so you could only get in there if it was unlocked. It was sort of like a, you know like patio doors have a…”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “Thing that goes up and down.”
4078 “Oh right.”
Reply “So the only time we’d have probably used the back, the poolside entrance is during the day if somebody else was in there already.”
4078 “Okay, so when you went out for your meal…”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “In the evening, the poolside door was always locked in your apartment.”
Reply “Yeah, yeah.”
4078 “So when you did your treks you had to go in through the roadside?”
Reply “Back, yeah through the back door.”
Or, more simply, Gerry could have told the truth in the first instance and then realised that if Kate had used a key she could not have failed to see the open bedroom window before she entered the apartment?
-
Or, more simply, Gerry could have told the truth in the first instance and then realised that if Kate had used a key she could not have failed to see the open bedroom window before she entered the apartment?
Well that is a glaring error. Did Gerry not really believe Kate either? This case sends me crazy, so many twists and turns.
-
Or, more simply, Gerry could have told the truth in the first instance and then realised that if Kate had used a key she could not have failed to see the open bedroom window before she entered the apartment?
If both Gerry and Kate entered using a key, how did Matt gain entrance?
-
If both Gerry and Kate entered using a key, how did Matt gain entrance?
He should have used the key but you can't turn the clock back.
-
I can only see 3 possibilities.
- Gerry told the truth about both him and Kate taking the long route round and entered with a key on 4 May, despite in the same statement stating that Matt entered via the unlocked verandah and the fact that Kate actually said the opposite in her own statement.
- Gerry lied about which door he entered, despite also mentioning that he needed a pee, and forgot to tell Kate to change her story. Why lie?
- It was a lost-in-confusion moment when what constituted the front / back door got mangled in Gerry's interview and was subsequently clarified in his 10 May one.
Faites vos jeux, as Alice is fond of saying.
-
If both Gerry and Kate entered using a key, how did Matt gain entrance?
Both Kate and Gerry stated that Matt went in through the verandah door.
Matt doesn't appear to have been asked more specifically on 4 May, but IMO that was clearly the verandah door.
That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
-
Both Kate and Gerry stated that Matt went in through the verandah door.
Matt doesn't appear to have been asked more specifically on 4 May, but IMO that was clearly the verandah door.
That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
So if the verandah door was unlocked why would Gerry want to enter by the other (locked) door as he said he did?
-
So if the verandah door was unlocked why would Gerry want to enter by the other (locked) door as he said he did?
Quite, Jassi. It doesn't make sense. The most logical explanation, IMO, is that he never did actually say that he entered with a key, but that whichever door he did mention was assumed to be the one requiring a key and that's how it got written down.
-
IMO He did use a key on that check like he said in his statement.
Two probable reasons:
1. The patio door was locked.
2. It was the nearest entrance at that time. You need to think outside the box for that one.
-
Quite, Jassi. It doesn't make sense. The most logical explanation, IMO, is that he never did actually say that he entered with a key, but that whichever door he did mention was assumed to be the one requiring a key and that's how it got written down.
There's no evidence of this.
When he makes his second statement he says he wishes to change his statement.
He does not say that the original one was wrongly transcribed or mistranslated, only that he wants to change it.
-
So if the verandah door was unlocked why would Gerry want to enter by the other (locked) door as he said he did?
Gerry got the details mixed up in the telling ?
-
Gerry got the details mixed up in the telling ?
Too right he did.
-
There's no evidence of this.
When he makes his second statement he says he wishes to change his statement.
He does not say that the original one was wrongly transcribed or mistranslated, only that he wants to change it.
A police officer would note that one of their own had got it wrong?
-
A police officer would note that one of their own had got it wrong?
I don't know.
The point is that he does not deny saying what he said, only that he wanted to change it.
Imaginative interpretation that it's other people that are wrong doesn't really wash. IMO
-
I don't know.
The point is that he does not deny saying what he said, only that he wanted to change it.
Imaginative interpretation that it's other people that are wrong doesn't really wash. IMO
Verbatim transcripts might have been helpful...
-
Yes, a great pity that statements weren't recorded from the start, then much of this would be beyond dispute.
-
Gerry got the details mixed up in the telling ?
My take is that there was no agreement as to what constituted the back or the front door, so each party thought they were referring to the other one.
-
There's no evidence of this.
When he makes his second statement he says he wishes to change his statement.
He does not say that the original one was wrongly transcribed or mistranslated, only that he wants to change it.
His request to change his statement was not verbatim and translated... Who knows what he said
-
My take is that there was no agreement as to what constituted the back or the front door, so each party thought they were referring to the other one.
I totally agree. At least that makes sense, with evidence of confusion over the doors available to back it up.
Nothing whatsoever to explain why Gerry would choose to walk past a door which he knew was unlocked a few feet away from him and decide to go the much longer way round to achieve the same goal i.e. simply to gain entrance into 5A. That makes no sense IMO.
Whatever the reason he gave for correcting his statement, it could not have been anything important to the case otherwise it would have been recorded in detail in his amended statement and Amaral would have told us what it was - and not just revealed that he changed his statement.
All in my opinion.
-
My take is that there was no agreement as to what constituted the back or the front door, so each party thought they were referring to the other one.
It has been long known that there was confusion about the front and back doors, albeit brief. Although it didn't take me very long to work it out.
That some people should still wish to raise this says more about their inability for cognisance. Or perhaps their wish to find yet another way to bash the McCanns, when in fact they know precisely what happened.
For a very short while, the front was back and the back was front. This misunderstanding no longer exists.
-
I totally agree. At least that makes sense, with evidence of confusion over the doors available to back it up.
Nothing whatsoever to explain why Gerry would choose to walk past a door which he knew was unlocked a few feet away from him and decide to go the much longer way round to achieve the same goal i.e. simply to gain entrance into 5A. That makes no sense IMO.
Whatever the reason he gave for correcting his statement, it could not have been anything important to the case otherwise it would have been recorded in detail in his amended statement and Amaral would have told us what it was - and not just revealed that he changed his statement.
All in my opinion.
Except that people are still talking about this apparent "discrepancy" over 10 years later...
-
Except that people are still talking about this apparent "discrepancy" over 10 years later...
IMO this is exactly the kind of 'discrepancy' which SY would be able to very easily clear up - either by asking Gerry to explain what happened and/or because of information they already had themselves, but which we have not been privy to.
-
I totally agree. At least that makes sense, with evidence of confusion over the doors available to back it up.
Nothing whatsoever to explain why Gerry would choose to walk past a door which he knew was unlocked a few feet away from him and decide to go the much longer way round to achieve the same goal i.e. simply to gain entrance into 5A. That makes no sense IMO.
Whatever the reason he gave for correcting his statement, it could not have been anything important to the case otherwise it would have been recorded in detail in his amended statement and Amaral would have told us what it was - and not just revealed that he changed his statement.
All in my opinion.
It makes sense if you know what likely happened - remember a girl disappeared. If you don't know what happened then of course it doesn't make sense to you.
-
It makes sense if you know what likely happened - remember a girl disappeared. If you don't know what happened then of course it doesn't make sense to you.
Be careful not to goad. It maybe alright but it was close to being abusive.
-
IMO this is exactly the kind of 'discrepancy' which SY would be able to very easily clear up - either by asking Gerry to explain what happened and/or because of information they already had themselves, but which we have not been privy to.
The people to speak to would be the interpreters, and the time to do it was after the second statement was taken while it was fresh in their minds. No point in asking anyone years after the event imo.
-
My take is that there was no agreement as to what constituted the back or the front door, so each party thought they were referring to the other one.
Then that's what Gerry would have said surely ?
-
There's no evidence of this.
When he makes his second statement he says he wishes to change his statement.
He does not say that the original one was wrongly transcribed or mistranslated, only that he wants to change it.
Did he say change it or clarify? He changes the door he enters in his second statement but without making any hoo ha about it.
-
Verbatim transcripts might have been helpful...
What language?
-
My take is that there was no agreement as to what constituted the back or the front door, so each party thought they were referring to the other one.
Whatever it was called one was needing a key and the other didn't.
-
What language?
English of course...... It's fairly obvious that the discrepancy are the door was caused by the translations... Imo
Without a verbatim English account it's impossible to know exactly what the mccanns actually said... Fact
-
English of course...... It's fairly obvious that the discrepancy are the door was caused by the translations... Imo
Without a verbatim English account it's impossible to know exactly what the mccanns actually said... Fact
We've tackled this topic several times, but I do agree an English version should have been produced at the time.
-
English of course...... It's fairly obvious that the discrepancy are the door was caused by the translations... Imo
Without a verbatim English account it's impossible to know exactly what the mccanns actually said... Fact
Ideally, a recorded interview: the inspector's questions, the interpreter (both ways) and the witness would show where any misunderstandings occurred. I'm not sure that happens anywhere for a simple witness interview, though.
-
Ideally, a recorded interview: the inspector's questions, the interpreter (both ways) and the witness would show where any misunderstandings occurred. I'm not sure that happens anywhere for a simple witness interview, though.
Without an original English transcript the, statements are worthless imo
-
Without an original English transcript the, statements are worthless imo
Well we have major problems then haven't we!
-
Well we have major problems then haven't we!
No we don't... I'm sure SY will have asked the mccanns to go over the events
-
We've tackled this topic several times, but I do agree an English version should have been produced at the time.
Some still insist that an English written translation of the PT reported speech version somehow got magically instantaneously translated for the witnesses to read prior to signing. How on earth that was supposed to happen in real time is beyond my limited imagination.
I'm not even certain that the interpreters read out the PT version in all instances, although I can accept that they may have done.
But you're still signing on the dotted line and have to just hope the interpreter is accurate. To be fair to the lady, she may have just been someone that someone knew who had a working knowledge of English through her job.
It's equally possible that, in the eary rush, that they weren't. I don't have Kate's book to hand to see if the early ones were read back or not and I can't find anything conclusive in the files beyond the standard "reads, ratifies and signs" blurb.
As an aside, in one of Russell's rog sessions (when the recording didn't work, I think), someone typed up a statement, presumably from notes, and he went over the wording with a fine-toothed comb... and that was all in English.
-
Some still insist that an English written translation of the PT reported speech version somehow got magically instantaneously translated for the witnesses to read prior to signing. How on earth that was supposed to happen in real time is beyond my limited imagination.
I'm not even certain that the interpreters read out the PT version in all instances, although I can accept that they may have done.
But you're still signing on the dotted line and have to just hope the interpreter is accurate. To be fair to the lady, she may have just been someone that someone knew who had a working knowledge of English through her job.
It's equally possible that, in the eary rush, that they weren't. I don't have Kate's book to hand to see if the early ones were read back or not and I can't find anything conclusive in the files beyond the standard "reads, ratifies and signs" blurb.
As an aside, in one of Russell's rog sessions (when the recording didn't work, I think), someone typed up a statement, presumably from notes, and he went over the wording with a fine-toothed comb... and that was all in English.
Reads... Ratifies and signs
That just about admits the fallacy.... They couldn't possibly read it
-
Then that's what Gerry would have said surely ?
We don't know what he actually said, nor what the inspector or the interpreter assumed he was referring to.
The inspector could have added "using a key" simply because he had made a note that one (back or front) needed a key and the other (back or front) didn't, and he thought he'd got it right so added it himself for clarification, but was simply mistaken.
-
Some still insist that an English written translation of the PT reported speech version somehow got magically instantaneously translated for the witnesses to read prior to signing. How on earth that was supposed to happen in real time is beyond my limited imagination.
I'm not even certain that the interpreters read out the PT version in all instances, although I can accept that they may have done.
But you're still signing on the dotted line and have to just hope the interpreter is accurate. To be fair to the lady, she may have just been someone that someone knew who had a working knowledge of English through her job.
It's equally possible that, in the eary rush, that they weren't. I don't have Kate's book to hand to see if the early ones were read back or not and I can't find anything conclusive in the files beyond the standard "reads, ratifies and signs" blurb.
As an aside, in one of Russell's rog sessions (when the recording didn't work, I think), someone typed up a statement, presumably from notes, and he went over the wording with a fine-toothed comb... and that was all in English.
Perhaps Russell had learned from experience the importance of checking every syllable he uttered?
-
Reads... Ratifies and signs
That just about admits the fallacy.... They couldn't possibly read it
Well that could be why some posters assumed that what was signed must have been in English. The police had a lot of interviews to squash in as fast as possible, and were short of people who spoke English, let alone well enough to write up an instant translation.
And even if there had been a secretary with shorthand, that wouldn't have been much good in a foreign language AFAIK if it's sound-based.
-
We don't know what he actually said, nor what the inspector or the interpreter assumed he was referring to.
The inspector could have added "using a key" simply because he had made a note that one (back or front) needed a key and the other (back or front) didn't, and he thought he'd got it right so added it himself for clarification, but was simply mistaken.
Although there is nothing to actually suggest this was the case. Merely your determination to make it so.
-
Although there is nothing to actually suggest this was the case. Merely your determination to make it so.
The fact is no one knows what was actually in those statement s because there is no accurate record... No one can claim as, a fact that they are accurate
-
Although there is nothing to actually suggest this was the case. Merely your determination to make it so.
No, I posted the 3 possibilities, and that's the only one that makes sense to me, plus the fact that I have experience of how such screw-ups can occur. Whether that's what actually happened or not, I don't know, I wasn't there.
ETA
Let's put it another way: can anyone think of a reasonable explanation as to why Gerry would have taken the long route (while also stating that Matt had gone in via the unlocked verandah) or why he would have lied?
-
Perhaps Russell had learned from experience the importance of checking every syllable he uttered?
That was my conclusion... ;)
-
That was my conclusion... ;)
And perhaps it was the innaccuracies in the previous statements that made him wary
-
Although there is nothing to actually suggest this was the case. Merely your determination to make it so.
I did so prefer this Forum when I should not have to consider your last few words. Which I should delete. But I am not going to.
I have had enough of this rubbish. None of you will get Political Correctness from me.
-
I did so prefer this Forum when I should not have to consider your last few words. Which I should delete. But I am not going to.
I have had enough of this rubbish. None of you will get Political Correctness from me.
Funnily enough, so have I
-
And perhaps it was the innaccuracies in the previous statements that made him wary
A few other people stated that there were inaccuracies in their statements, but I just don't feel like wading through them all to find them again at the moment.
It happens. I already mentioned an anecdote of when I went to a police station in a country in which I didn't understand the language at the time and someone interpreted for me. I stumbled on the statement many years later clearing out files and loads of it was quite simply wrong. At the time, I just scanned through it before signing, as I was only interested in three details (my name and the word "passport" being two of them) so that I could get the ball rolling.
-
And perhaps it was the innaccuracies in the previous statements that made him wary
Dunno. It could also be tabloid hacks who have a tendency to get things muddled, plus all the rogs start with agreeing with some statement or other and it's not clear what that actually was. The legal implications probably, but possibly also that their rogs would be part of the PJ files and thus potentially made public.
And don't forget that hacks were down wherever he was expecting him to be arrested at any moment, so I guess he had reason to be a bit pissed off.
-
Funnily enough, so have I
And so have most of us, who can't be bothered to get offended by ill chosen words.
-
The fact is no one knows what was actually in those statement s because there is no accurate record... No one can claim as, a fact that they are accurate
Even were there an accurate record of what was said that is no guarantee what was said was the truth.
-
Even were there an accurate record of what was said that is no guarantee what was said was the truth.
True, but it seems to be the so-called "discrepancy" itself that some find suspicious.
-
Perhaps Russell had learned from experience the importance of checking every syllable he uttered?
A wise man.
The MSM is full of stories concerning "victims" who did not follow Rule 1 of Contract Law then signed something they lived to regret.
RTFSPS* as we say.
Read The Flipping Small Print Sucker
-
It is sometime what you don't say that matters.
-
Although there is nothing to actually suggest this was the case. Merely your determination to make it so.
"Could have" means it is a possibility not a certainty.
-
No, I posted the 3 possibilities, and that's the only one that makes sense to me, plus the fact that I have experience of how such screw-ups can occur. Whether that's what actually happened or not, I don't know, I wasn't there.
ETA
Let's put it another way: can anyone think of a reasonable explanation as to why Gerry would have taken the long route (while also stating that Matt had gone in via the unlocked verandah) or why he would have lied?
When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked. When Matt checked at 9.30 it had been unlocked.
-
When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked. When Matt checked at 9.30 it had been unlocked.
He clearly states different things as per his first 2 official statements. Now if we are to assume the second one is more correct we can't have "When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked" otherwise we are calling him a liar. It would have to be a different reason to that. In fact even I can't get the logic right. For if there was a reason to go through the front door then his second statement is incorrect rather than the first.
-
When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked. When Matt checked at 9.30 it had been unlocked.
That would mean they left 5a for the Tapas restaurant through the front door at 8.30 as the patio door could not be locked from the outside.
Not sure whether it is stated anywhere that they did leave via the patio door, but in view of their concern re the noise the front door made when it was used, and their previous decision to use the patio door for ease of checking - I think it's highly unlikely that they left via the front door, unless for some specific reason. If the latter was the case then they would have mentioned what that 'specific reason' was for changing their routine, in their statements IMO.
-
He clearly states different things as per his first 2 official statements. Now if we are to assume the second one is more correct we can't have "When Gerry checked at 9.05 the veranda door was locked" otherwise we are calling him a liar. It would have to be a different reason to that. In fact even I can't get the logic right. For if there was a reason to go through the front door then his second statement is incorrect rather than the first.
Based on Gerry's first statement it's reasonable and logical to suggest that if he used the front door it was because the veranda door was locked. A week later in his second statement he corrected his first statement. He says they left by the patio doors, leaving them unlocked. Quite why he made the mistake in his first statement we don't know, but there's no evidence that he made a deliberate attempt to deceive (a lie).
-
Based on Gerry's first statement it's reasonable and logical to suggest that if he used the front door it was because the veranda door was locked. A week later in his second statement he corrected his first statement. He says they left by the patio doors, leaving them unlocked. Quite why he made the mistake in his first statement we don't know, but there's no evidence that he made a deliberate attempt to deceive (a lie).
'
Personally I can't tell if the mistake is in the first statement or the second.
-
Based on Gerry's first statement it's reasonable and logical to suggest that if he used the front door it was because the veranda door was locked. A week later in his second statement he corrected his first statement. He says they left by the patio doors, leaving them unlocked. Quite why he made the mistake in his first statement we don't know, but there's no evidence that he made a deliberate attempt to deceive (a lie).
He may have made no mistake but the person transcribing the statement did
-
He may have made no mistake but the person transcribing the statement did
It is Gerry's signature (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_41.jpg)
-
He may have made no mistake but the person transcribing the statement did
Gerry corrected himself in his second statement. He had every opportunity to say that it was a translation error yet didn't.
' Despite what he said in his previous statements, '
-
Gerry corrected himself in his second statement. He had every opportunity to say that it was a translation error yet didn't.
' Despite what he said in his previous statements, '
What he said in his previous statement may well have been 'I entered through the front door'. -which is true, however he meant the patio door but it was mis-interpreted as meaning the carpark door.
I find it hard to believe that he would change his statement and give no reason for making that change to the PJ - or that they would not ask him why he wanted to change his statement.
I can however understand a reluctance to record that it was as a result of a mix-up during an interview for fear that that could be seen as a criticism of the interviewing PJ officer or interpreter. Personally I would have no criticism at all if mistakes were made in that very first interview which was new territory for all concerned and carried out with the traumatised father of a missing child.
AIMHO
-
Ideally, a recorded interview: the inspector's questions, the interpreter (both ways) and the witness would show where any misunderstandings occurred. I'm not sure that happens anywhere for a simple witness interview, though.
Despite Lewis,Morse, Joe Friday and Gideon of The Yard it does not because of the protocols that have to be followed to make the thing recording admissible in court. See UK rules under CPS Guff if you're short of laughs on a miserable day.
It's worth looking at Portuguese "nuts and bolts law" to obtain a better picture of how statements are used.
For the Xenophobes among you and to head off the bias at the pass, I suggest you look at Germanic Law, on which Portuguese Law is based, ..........................unless your mum's and dad's chippy was bombed by the Luftwaffe in whcih case I give up... @)(++(*
-
What he said in his previous statement may well have been 'I entered through the front door'. -which is true, however he meant the patio door but it was mis-interpreted as meaning the carpark door.
I find it hard to believe that he would change his statement and give no reason for making that change to the PJ - or that they would not ask him why he wanted to change his statement.
I can however understand a reluctance to record that it was as a result of a mix-up during an interview for fear that that could be seen as a criticism of the interviewing PJ officer or interpreter. Personally I would have no criticism at all if mistakes were made in that very first interview which was new territory for all concerned and carried out with the traumatised father of a missing child.
AIMHO
It may well have been, but this makes it absolutely clear which door he meant;
entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
-
It may well have been, but this makes it absolutely clear which door he meant;
entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
One logical conclusion is that he couldn’t remember, unfortunately that scenario would cast doubt on all his other statement.
-
One logical conclusion is that he couldn’t remember, unfortunately that scenario would cast doubt on all his other statement.
No reason to believe it is true... Another logical conclusion is poor translation.. Which would explain all the inconsistencies
-
No reason to believe it is true... Another logical conclusion is poor translation.. Which would explain all the inconsistencies
I don't suppose for a minute that when the PJ were investigating this real time they did it with the thought that ten years down the track a bunch of Brtitish geriatrics* would be sitting in their bath chairs complete with laptops trying to solve the case between pee and medication breaks.
Had the PJ realised I am sure they would have payed it no heed..... 8(>((
Geriatric= when Franz Beckenbauer scores three goals ?
-
I don't suppose for a minute that when the PJ were investigating this real time they did it with the thought that ten years down the track a bunch of Brtitish geriatrics* would be sitting in their bath chairs complete with laptops trying to solve the case between pee and medication breaks.
Had the PJ realised I am sure they would have payed it no heed..... 8(>((
Geriatric= when Franz Beckenbauer scores three goals ?
@)(++(*
ETA: Except that certain elements of the PJ drew attention to it as somehow evidence of some nefarious deed.
-
I don't suppose for a minute that when the PJ were investigating this real time they did it with the thought that ten years down the track a bunch of Brtitish geriatrics* would be sitting in their bath chairs complete with laptops trying to solve the case between pee and medication breaks.
Had the PJ realised I am sure they would have payed it no heed..... 8(>((
Geriatric= when Franz Beckenbauer scores three goals ?
I was waiting for the line about sitting around knitting but you seemed to omit that one.
-
What he said in his previous statement may well have been 'I entered through the front door'. -which is true, however he meant the patio door but it was mis-interpreted as meaning the carpark door.
I find it hard to believe that he would change his statement and give no reason for making that change to the PJ - or that they would not ask him why he wanted to change his statement.
I can however understand a reluctance to record that it was as a result of a mix-up during an interview for fear that that could be seen as a criticism of the interviewing PJ officer or interpreter. Personally I would have no criticism at all if mistakes were made in that very first interview which was new territory for all concerned and carried out with the traumatised father of a missing child.
AIMHO
If they had asked him why he had changed his statement there would have been the chance he would incriminate himself therefore he would have to have been made an arguido.
-
No reason to believe it is true... Another logical conclusion is poor translation.. Which would explain all the inconsistencies
It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.
an interpreter was requested.
It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
-
It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.
an interpreter was requested.
It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
Operation Task debrief:On 4th May Leicestshire Police sent out FLO resources to supply support to the McCann's and to act as a link to the Portuguese investigation,whats to say that they were not sat in on any interviews.
-
Operation Task debrief:On 4th May Leicestshire Police sent out FLO resources to supply support to the McCann's and to act as a link to the Portuguese investigation,whats to say that they were not sat in on any interviews.
I think they flew out on 5th, Barrier.
At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
-
If they had asked him why he had changed his statement there would have been the chance he would incriminate himself therefore he would have to have been made an arguido.
If the officer had noticed at the time that something wasn't making sense, he could have asked for clarification at the time to make sure that there wasn't a simple misunderstanding.
That's not a criticism of the officer, btw, but there was some urgency in trying to work out the basics, with a long day ahead.
-
It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.
an interpreter was requested.
It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
I think it's been admitted by the pj there were errors..... There is absolutely bound to be
-
If the officer had noticed at the time that something wasn't making sense, he could have asked for clarification at the time to make sure that there wasn't a simple misunderstanding.
That's not a criticism of the officer, btw, but there was some urgency in trying to work out the basics, with a long day ahead.
There was no need for clarification in the first interview. It was clear what Gerry had said.
-
It may seem logical to you to accuse the interpreters of breaking the law without any evidence, but I think it's unacceptable.
an interpreter was requested.
It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
I think there might be a slight problem there, G-Unit.
I can't find the paragraph that you just quoted in the PT statement. AFAIK, that was an explanatory note by a blogger who'd translated the PT version into French, which Anna then translated into English.
-
There was no need for clarification in the first interview. It was clear what Gerry had said.
Were you there? I wasn't.
If the officer had had time to think, wouldn't it have been logical to ask if he'd decided to unlock the verandah door and if so, why?
-
Were you there? I wasn't.
If the officer had had time to think, wouldn't it have been logical to ask if he'd decided to unlock the verandah door and if so, why?
Until the second interview there was no need for clarification and by then Gerry had attempted to offer an explanation.
-
@)(++(*
ETA: Except that certain elements of the PJ drew attention to it as somehow evidence of some nefarious deed.
There are only about six items that would set bells off in my 'ead.
Not many out of about one and half dozen if you say it quick, like.
-
I think it's been admitted by the pj there were errors..... There is absolutely bound to be
I can accept you having thoughts that are your own, but this one will require some evidence for you are thinking it has been admitted, so that admission is either a fact or a fiction. Show us your basis of your thinking?
-
I can accept you having thoughts that are your own, but this one will require some evidence for you are thinking it has been admitted, so that admission is either a fact or a fiction. Show us your basis of your thinking?
There is a daily mail article which has been cited about a million times
I'm on my phone...
Google
McCann possible translation errors the telegraph
It's crystal clear
-
There is a daily mail article which has been cited about a million times
I'm on my phone...
Google
McCann possible translation errors the telegraph
It's crystal clear
You do it for you will recognise it quicker than I will.
-
You do it for you will recognise it quicker than I will.
I'm posting from my phone
I've done it but can't copy and paste
It's been cited many times
-
I think there might be a slight problem there, G-Unit.
I can't find the paragraph that you just quoted in the PT statement. AFAIK, that was an explanatory note by a blogger who'd translated the PT version into French, which Anna then translated into English.
Interpreters in Portugal use consecutive interpreting. That means they listen/take notes then deliver their interpretation orally. It's done in chunks; sentences or paragraphs. At the end of the process they translate back to the witness what has been written down. The witness signs if they find it OK and the interpreter signs to say they have interpreted the document correctly.
fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/rights-suspected-persons-country_pt.pdf
-
Interpreters in Portugal use consecutive interpreting. That means they listen/take notes then deliver their interpretation orally. It's done in chunks; sentences or paragraphs. At the end of the process they translate back to the witness what has been written down. The witness signs if they find it OK and the interpreter signs to say they have interpreted the document correctly.
fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/rights-suspected-persons-country_pt.pdf
That sounds like a school kid marking their own exam papers.
-
I'm posting from my phone
I've done it but can't copy and paste
It's been cited many times
Give me the significant words in the title then.
-
Give me the significant words in the title then.
I already have post 94
McCann possible translation errors the telegraph
-
That sounds like a school kid marking their own exam papers.
What an excellent post
-
Interpreters in Portugal use consecutive interpreting. That means they listen/take notes then deliver their interpretation orally. It's done in chunks; sentences or paragraphs. At the end of the process they translate back to the witness what has been written down. The witness signs if they find it OK and the interpreter signs to say they have interpreted the document correctly.
fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/rights-suspected-persons-country_pt.pdf
So even if the translator got it totally wrong there is no evidence
-
There is a daily mail article which has been cited about a million times
I'm on my phone...
Google
McCann possible translation errors the telegraph
It's crystal clear
Crystal clear? "a police source said" does not mean " it's been admitted by the pj there were errors". The article seems to be an attempt to suggest that Murat's interpretations were below par, not those of the other interpreters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
-
I already have post 94
McCann possible translation errors the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
Thanks
-
Crystal clear? "a police source said" does not mean " it's been admitted by the pj there were errors". The article seems to be an attempt to suggest that Murat's interpretations were below par, not those of the other interpreters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
Rob asked for my source... I gave it... The wording is crystal clear.... IMO it's ridiculous to suggest there are no errors particularly as we have no record of the competence of the interpreters
-
That sounds like a school kid marking their own exam papers.
It's a legally binding declaration by the interpreter with, I assume, legal consequences. No comparison at all.
-
It's a legally binding declaration by the interpreter with, I assume, legal consequences. No comparison at all.
It may be legally binding but could you explain how it could possibly be challenged as there is no record of the witness statement.... Totally ridiculous
-
Rob asked for my source... I gave it... The wording is crystal clear.... IMO it's ridiculous to suggest there are no errors particularly as we have no record of the competence of the interpreters
I agree, the wording is clear, and it's clear it doesn't say what you said it did. The journalist says it, but 'the source' didn't, so her claim that the PJ said anything is misleading to say the least.
-
I think they flew out on 5th, Barrier.
At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
According to the debrief it was the 4th,possibly starting work on the 5th then.
-
I agree, the wording is clear, and it's clear it doesn't say what you said it did. The journalist says it, but 'the source' didn't, so her claim that the PJ said anything is misleading to say the least.
Perhaps you could be this critical on every newspaper article.... You might then come to the conclusion the mccanns are innocent... Imo
I had already realised translation mistakes we're inevitable... This article was just another small piece of the jigsaw
-
'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in the translation of documents
I has a question:
If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.
Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.
-
'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in the translation of documents
I has a question:
If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.
Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.
I interpret what you are saying as you are agreeing there must be some handwritten or typed notes made by the interpreter for which to judge the presence of errors.
-
'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in the translation of documents
I has a question:
If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.
Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.
We don't know... But presumably SY and the present PJ investigation do... And they have both stated the mccanns are not suspects.... That SHOULD answer the question
-
'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in the translation of documents
I has a question:
If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.
Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.
I note you... Like me... Accept that there will be some errors
-
'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in the translation of documents
I has a question:
If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.
Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.
What would upset me more than "The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant" is "The trick is knowing whether the errors were deliberate".
If Robert Murat was involved he would surely have inserted deliberate errors into the translations he completed. I read that they didn't find any examples of deliberate errors.
-
What would upset me more than "The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant" is "The trick is knowing whether the errors were deliberate".
If Robert Murat was involved he would surely have inserted deliberate errors into the translations he completed. I read that they didn't find any examples of deliberate errors.
I disagree with that hypothesis, Robitty. In my opinion any translator would have been aware that statements could have been easily checked for deliberate translation errors.
Therefore in my opinion if initial errors were made they were inadvertant.
Were an individual so inclined the value to anyone involved in Madeleine's abduction would have been the knowledge of who had seen what, where and when. Great way to keep one jump ahead.
In the event I think Robert Murat was genuinely eager to help and just got caught up in a maelstrom partly because, in my opinion, of his own rather eccentric behaviour.
-
I note you... Like me... Accept that there will be some errors
It went without saying there would be errors.
What I don't understand is why you should make such a song and dance about it.
-
I disagree with that hypothesis, Robitty. In my opinion any translator would have been aware that statements could have been easily checked for deliberate translation errors.
Therefore in my opinion if initial errors were made they were inadvertant.
Were an individual so inclined the value to anyone involved in Madeleine's abduction would have been the knowledge of who had seen what, where and when. Great way to keep one jump ahead.
In the event I think Robert Murat was genuinely eager to help and just got caught up in a maelstrom partly because, in my opinion, of his own rather eccentric behaviour.
OK whatever it was that that made the PJ think he was involved, I did read they looked through his translations supposedly for errors.
-
I interpret what you are saying as you are agreeing there must be some handwritten or typed notes made by the interpreter for which to judge the presence of errors.
Incorrect.
My point was there probably are no such notes.
But even were there notes they would be put on file by the PP who would then decide whether or not they were released to the public when case was filed.
The issue is what were the journos using as their bench mark when banging on about errors in translation and how did they elicit this benchmark information in November 2007?
If there are no notes they cannot have seen them.
If there are notes then the PP or PJ handed them to the journos.
or we could have another conspiracy theory; ...................oh no! .....[exits stage left in a hurry even]
-
OK whatever it was that that made the PJ think he was involved, I did read they looked through his translations supposedly for errors.
It is my understanding his work passed muster and having read the information about him in the files and his statements I have to admit he would have been my no1 suspect too had I been an investigating officer.
The fact is there was never any substantiating evidence to support that.
-
where did I read the PJ check RM's translations for errors? You say "If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error?" Does that then imply there were other written notes to which the PJ referred to?
For how were the PJ going to check RM's translations if there were no other notes?
-
where did I read the PJ check RM's translations for errors? You say "If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error?" Does that then imply there were other written notes to which the PJ referred to?
For how were the PJ going to check RM's translations if there were no other notes?
By the time they were checking Murat out the initial hectic task of getting people interviewed would have calmed down a bit so my speculation would be they could have prioritised asking pertinent questions of those Murat had interpreted for who were still around, or maybe the questioning officer who may well have written something down?
I don't know where but I believe I've seen somewhere that his work was of an acceptable standard.
-
Why did Gerry give a second statement ? Was it requested or did he volunteer?
-
By the time they were checking Murat out the initial hectic task of getting people interviewed would have calmed down a bit so my speculation would be they could have prioritised asking pertinent questions of those Murat had interpreted for who were still around, or maybe the questioning officer who may well have written something down?
I don't know where but I believe I've seen somewhere that his work was of an acceptable standard.
I spent time looking for that too today but no luck so far.
-
'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in the translation of documents
I has a question:
If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.
Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.
Agreed.
When things don't make sense to me, I find it useful to try to determine the context of a situation.
At first, I didn't really realise that the local PJ had to more or less make do with totally inadequate resources (in every sense) they could muster. And that's not a criticism before some people fly at my throat - I'm sure a lot of officers did the very best they could in challenging circumstances.
More specifically, yes, errors are bound to happen in chaotic circumstances. The worst being a refusal to accept that any may have occurred... and that can lead down a slippery path.
-
By the time they were checking Murat out the initial hectic task of getting people interviewed would have calmed down a bit so my speculation would be they could have prioritised asking pertinent questions of those Murat had interpreted for who were still around, or maybe the questioning officer who may well have written something down?
I don't know where but I believe I've seen somewhere that his work was of an acceptable standard.
He'd done occasional interpreting work for the UK police and they found him to be of an acceptable level. Something to do with a problem involving Portuguese workers in a UK chicken (?) factory, from my now vague recollection.
A quick google hasn't been of much help. I found this, but TinEye isn't being cooperative today to date these:
Hockering Fotografías e imágenes de stock | Getty Images
www.gettyimages.es/fotos/hockering
Translate this page
Police stand outside an address in Hockering Norfolk the former home of Briton Robert Murat interviewed. ED. Wokers during the cull at Witford Lodge Farm in Hockering Norfolk. ED. Culled chickens are removed from Witford Lodge Farm in Hockering Norfolk. ED. The lorry containing culled chickens leaves Witford Lodge ...
https://www.gettyimages.es/fotos/hockering?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=hockering
-
Why did Gerry give a second statement ? Was it requested or did he volunteer?
Requested but Kate never had a second interview like Gerry on 10 May. She got preferential treatment (Gerry was allowed to sit in on 4 May) and then refused to answer questions in September.
10 May 2007
"I sat in the waiting area for eight hours before I was told that it was now too late for me to be interviewed and I should go home and come back the next day.
Alan Pike was concerned about my wellbeing and asked for my rescheduled interview to be postponed for a few days. The PJ couldn’t have considered it all that important: it was 6 September before I was interviewed again." KM
-
where did I read the PJ check RM's translations for errors? You say "If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error?" Does that then imply there were other written notes to which the PJ referred to?
For how were the PJ going to check RM's translations if there were no other notes?
With no record, written or AV-recorded, any interpreter could have said anything they chose to and no one would have been any the wiser at the time.
Re Murat - when I've come across details that made me want to check back as to who the interpreter was, none have been related to him. So far, anyway.
Ironically, he may well have been one of the best in the early days. He didn't just have a working knowledge of both languages, he was fluent in both and would have been one of the few able to understand colloquial language and accents.
-
He'd done occasional interpreting work for the UK police and they found him to be of an acceptable level. Something to do with a problem involving Portuguese workers in a UK chicken (?) factory, from my now vague recollection.
A quick google hasn't been of much help. I found this, but TinEye isn't being cooperative today to date these:
Hockering Fotografías e imágenes de stock | Getty Images
www.gettyimages.es/fotos/hockering
Translate this page
Police stand outside an address in Hockering Norfolk the former home of Briton Robert Murat interviewed. ED. Wokers during the cull at Witford Lodge Farm in Hockering Norfolk. ED. Culled chickens are removed from Witford Lodge Farm in Hockering Norfolk. ED. The lorry containing culled chickens leaves Witford Lodge ...
https://www.gettyimages.es/fotos/hockering?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=hockering
If you believe that mistakes were made you must also agree that those mistakes could have helped as well as unfairly implicated the McCanns ? Questions not asked, incompetent forensics, Gerry being allowed to sit in on Kate's first interview, these could have all skewed the case in the McCanns favour.
-
With no record, written or AV-recorded, any interpreter could have said anything they chose to and no one would have been any the wiser at the time.
Re Murat - when I've come across details that made me want to check back as to who the interpreter was, none have been related to him. So far, anyway.
Ironically, he may well have been one of the best in the early days. He didn't just have a working knowledge of both languages, he was fluent in both and would have been one of the few able to understand colloquial language and accents.
Beware that is around the libel line, not sure which side yet.
-
If you believe that mistakes were made you must also agree that those mistakes could have helped as well as unfairly implicated the McCanns ? Questions not asked, incompetent forensics, Gerry being allowed to sit in on Kate's first interview, these could have all skewed the case in the McCanns favour.
Who was responsible for those decisions?
-
Beware that is around the libel line, not sure which side yet.
I don't think so.
Objectively, any interpreter could deliberately misinterpret if they had a vested interest in doing so if nothing is recorded. That's not libellous, it's just a possibility that could be valid in any case anywhere in the world.
My only comment about Murat is precisely that I'd never found anything odd. So that's hardly libellous, either.
-
Did they also delete McCann mobile records?
-
Did they also delete McCann mobile records?
Not that I'm aware of.
-
Who was responsible for those decisions?
It doesn't really matter who was responsible for those decisions the point I'm making is that those decisions could have helped the McCanns evade justice as readily as put them wrongly in the frame. That's simply common sense.
-
It doesn't really matter who was responsible for those decisions the point I'm making is that those decisions could have helped the McCanns evade justice as readily as put them wrongly in the frame. That's simply common sense.
Yes, lots of cases get thrown out of court in many countries due to errors of procedure that lawyers pick on. We all know that. In this case, that doesn't apply: they were never even arrested, let alone facing a criminal court case; and the basic procedure of finding someone to interpret for witnesses did actually happen (albeit retroactively chased up by the magistrate to get the oath paper signed in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance).
But what are you thinking of in particular that could have helped them "evade justice"?
-
Yes, lots of cases get thrown out of court in many countries due to errors of procedure that lawyers pick on. We all know that. In this case, that doesn't apply: they were never even arrested, let alone facing a criminal court case; and the basic procedure of finding someone to interpret for witnesses did actually happen (albeit retroactively chased up by the magistrate to get the oath paper signed in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance).
But what are you thinking of in particular that could have helped them "evade justice"?
Missed forensics, less than vigorous questioning, not carrying out a reconstruction when the main protagonists were still in Portugal, letting Gerry sit with Kate with his hand on her shoulder during questioning, not questioning Kate on the 10th of May, these are just some of the PJ's actions that could have helped the McCanns evade justice. I'm not saying they did, I'm saying incompetence works both ways.
-
Not that I'm aware of.
As Kate didn't write about their deleted mobile records in her book of truth then maybe she didn't know about it.
-
where did I read the PJ check RM's translations for errors? You say "If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error?" Does that then imply there were other written notes to which the PJ referred to?
For how were the PJ going to check RM's translations if there were no other notes?
"Nothing can be made or accomplished without proper or adequate material or information. 'You can't make bricks without straw and you can't portray a character just by making him up from within yourself'."
-
Why did Gerry give a second statement ? Was it requested or did he volunteer?
Some days when I am being a really sad old bustard I tinker about with things on this case.
A tabulation of salient points in each statement is interesting. Forgetting about pointless things like what colour socks people were wearing and such dross.
Somethings change somethings don't.
What is for sure is there is no confusion over which door is which nor it would seem is there any confusion in Gerry's mind about where he stood talking to Jez?!
There's more!
-
If you believe that mistakes were made you must also agree that those mistakes could have helped as well as unfairly implicated the McCanns ? Questions not asked, incompetent forensics, Gerry being allowed to sit in on Kate's first interview, these could have all skewed the case in the McCanns favour.
Oh absolutely.
It's the same way manufacturing tolerances work on components and assemblies. They rarely all go the same way.
With the usual caveat of: "Except in guess where?"... 8(0(*
-
Missed forensics, less than vigorous questioning, not carrying out a reconstruction when the main protagonists were still in Portugal, letting Gerry sit with Kate with his hand on her shoulder during questioning, not questioning Kate on the 10th of May, these are just some of the PJ's actions that could have helped the McCanns evade justice. I'm not saying they did, I'm saying incompetence works both ways.
Ok, I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is how the pro-PJ media made many of the issues you raise appear necessarily suspicious. All of which, in the absence of any PJ media strategy, got amplified by the UK tabloids, and ended up as "confirmed" because the same blurb had appeared in the UK media.
IMO, most people with with fairly firm preconceived ideas (on either side of any emotive subject) will tend to believe anything that supports a confirmation bias. Once that happens, it's hard to stand back and reconsider.
-
Oh absolutely.
It's the same way manufacturing tolerances work on components and assemblies. They rarely all go the same way.
With the usual caveat of: "Except in guess where?"... 8(0(*
Be a sport, Alice, could you be a little less cryptic? I really don't have a clue what you mean.
-
Be a sport, Alice, could you be a little less cryptic? I really don't have a clue what you mean.
"Except in guess where?"... Is a reference to that little spot in Portugal where the odds of something happening suddenly increase as if by magic. The magical place has coordinates that Alice quotes, but more commonly called by the rest of us OC Gardens Praia da Luz.
-
"Nothing can be made or accomplished without proper or adequate material or information. 'You can't make bricks without straw and you can't portray a character just by making him up from within yourself'."
The idea of adding straw to make bricks seems so foreign to me.
-
With no record, written or AV-recorded, any interpreter could have said anything they chose to and no one would have been any the wiser at the time.
Re Murat - when I've come across details that made me want to check back as to who the interpreter was, none have been related to him. So far, anyway.
Ironically, he may well have been one of the best in the early days. He didn't just have a working knowledge of both languages, he was fluent in both and would have been one of the few able to understand colloquial language and accents.
Even some of the PJ and GNR seem to be bilingual. I wouldn't say they were fluent in English but it would be unwise to think the Police listening to the witnesses speak in English were not understood to some extent.
But very few of the tourists would understand the Portuguese.
-
Even some of the PJ and GNR seem to be bilingual. I wouldn't say they were fluent in English but it would be unwise to think the Police listening to the witnesses speak in English were not understood to some extent.
But very few of the tourists would understand the Portuguese.
No, I'm aware that a few PJ officers understood some English. Paiva in particular was conversant, apparently.
In general, however, it's easier to understand a written text than to decipher what someone is saying when speaking. And English is a tough one with so many different accents and the frequent use of colloquial expressions.
-
"Except in guess where?"... Is a reference to that little spot in Portugal where the odds of something happening suddenly increase as if by magic. The magical place has coordinates that Alice quotes, but more commonly called by the rest of us OC Gardens Praia da Luz.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the translation. :)
-
Be a sport, Alice, could you be a little less cryptic? I really don't have a clue what you mean.
Which bit do you find cryptic?
The first bit about manufacturing tolerances will be well understood by every engineer in the world no matter his discipline. It is scarcely cryptic and generally referred to as "tolerance build up" or if you are Yank "stack up" see:
http://www.sigmetrix.com/tolerance-stack-up/
Some variations go on one side of the scales some go on the other. Plus and minus. Simples.
Or if you play golf the description is "rub of the green" or if you want it in "Alicespeke" which ususlly draws points or warnings: "Where there is room for error it is fatuous to presume the error will always benefit the same side".
The bit about "guess where?" is my normal jibe about how in order to make some stories fit no natural law seem to apply in PdL which phenomenom we are expected to swallow without question.
-
Which bit do you find cryptic?
The first bit about manufacturing tolerances will be well understood by every engineer in the world no matter his discipline. It is scarcely cryptic and generally referred to as "tolerance build up" or if you are Yank "stack up" see:
http://www.sigmetrix.com/tolerance-stack-up/
Some variations go on one side of the scales some go on the other. Plus and minus. Simples.
Or if you play golf the description is "rub of the green" or if you want it in "Alicespeke" which ususlly draws points or warnings: "Where there is room for error it is fatuous to presume the error will always benefit the same side".
The bit about "guess where?" is my normal jibe about how in order to make some stories fit no natural law seem to apply in PdL which phenomenom we are expected to swallow without question.
Ok. Thanks.