Visits to the play area after tea. What is the truth?

[Mr Gray]

"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm

could you tell me where this statement comes from...who wrote it..looks like someone has just made it up...LOL.....are you under the impression this is an official statement...cite...i think youve been fooled

It's absolutely laughable you use a statement with no provenance to support your view

[G-Unit]

could you tell me where this statement comes from...who wrote it..looks like someone has just made it up...LOL.....are you under the impression this is an official statement...cite...i think youve been fooled

It's absolutely laughable you use a statement with no provenance to support your view

Are you suggesting that the witnesses signed without knowing what was in their statements? Now that is laughable.

[Mr Gray]

Are you suggesting that the witnesses signed without knowing what was in their statements? Now that is laughable.

Read the post again.. I'm suggesting nothing but stating quite clearly as, a fact that the statement you quoted to support your argument has no provenance... Yet you continually whinge on about evidence.. That's laughable

[Mr Gray]

Are you suggesting that the witnesses signed without knowing what was in their statements? Now that is laughable.

It's an absolute incontrovertible fact

[barrier]

It's an absolute incontrovertible fact

The evidence for that is?

[G-Unit]

Read the post again.. I'm suggesting nothing but stating quite clearly as, a fact that the statement you quoted to support your argument has no provenance... Yet you continually whinge on about evidence.. That's laughable

The text I quoted described what happened. Mrs McCann describes the process too;

questions asked in Portuguese and verbally translated into English; answers given in English, translated into Portuguese and typed up by the interviewing officer – was exhausting for everyone. At the end of the interview the statement prepared by the officer would be printed out in Portuguese, verbally translated, on the spot, into English, and then signed by the interviewee.
madeleine by Kate McCann

[G-Unit]

It's an absolute incontrovertible fact

Not according to Kate McCann it isn't. Are you saying she got it wrong? Another laughable idea.

[Mr Gray]

Not according to Kate McCann it isn't. Are you saying she got it wrong? Another laughable idea.

According to Kate as I recall..make sure you give your statement in your own language... According to Kate.. There are mistakes in the, statements.. So bad they gave new ones

[Mr Gray]

The evidence for that is?

How could they know for sure what was written down when it was in Portuguese... It would be impossible

[Mr Gray]

In essence their signature confirms what was read back to them was correct... But there's no record of what that was

[Mr Gray]

The text I quoted described what happened. Mrs McCann describes the process too;

questions asked in Portuguese and verbally translated into English; answers given in English, translated into Portuguese and typed up by the interviewing officer – was exhausting for everyone. At the end of the interview the statement prepared by the officer would be printed out in Portuguese, verbally translated, on the spot, into English, and then signed by the interviewee.
madeleine by Kate McCann

That is not the same as the statement you posted... There are major differences ..very important difference

[Mr Gray]

Could you point out where Kate says, thus..

. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."

[G-Unit]

That is not the same as the statement you posted... There are major differences ..very important difference

It's really quite simple;

PJ Officer asks a question in Portuguese.
Interpreter asks witness in their language.
Witness answers.
Interpreter tells PJ Officer what the witness said (in Portuguese)
PJ Officer types that into his computer.
Typed statement (in Portuguese) is printed out.
Interpreter tells witness what it says in the witness's language.
Witness signs it as correct.
Interpreter signs to ratify his/her translation.

[Mr Gray]

It's really quite simple;

PJ Officer asks a question in Portuguese.
Interpreter asks witness in their language.
Witness answers.
Interpreter tells PJ Officer what the witness said (in Portuguese)
PJ Officer types that into his computer.
Typed statement (in Portuguese) is printed out.
Interpreter tells witness what it says in the witness's language.
Witness signs it as correct.
Interpreter signs to ratify his/her translation.

Yes, we knew that 12 years ago... Witness, signs a Portuguese statement

[G-Unit]

Yes, we knew that 12 years ago... Witness, signs a Portuguese statement

Which has just been translated for them. By an interpreter who has signed to say their translation was correct.