A question for AnneGuedes the translator

[Chinagirl]

AnneGuedes:  Quote
Suddenly I realise, off topic sorry, that Chinagirl said the translations of the files were biased and gave an example. I asked the reference... Unquote

I didn't say the translations were biased, but that they had been undertaken by amateurs with an agenda - "[ censored word]" in other words.  As an example of a professional translation I posted an extract from the Final Report as it appeared in the judgment of Tugendhat J in the case of McCann v Bennett.  You asked for the Portuguese original.

As I have no Portuguese, I have no idea where or how to find the original.  However, as it is the conclusion to the Final Report which, I suggest, is the most widely discussed aspect of all the released files, and given your familiarity with these files as one of the translators, I am certain you will have no difficulty in locating it yourself.  An English translation can be found here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

[Chinagirl]

For reference I re-post here the relevant extract in Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment:

the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Para. 128 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

[Chinagirl]

As a postscript, I would like to say I have no quibble with the translations made by people like Astro, Ines, et al, and am grateful for them.  Without their efforts those of us with no knowledge of Portuguese would still be in ignorance of what was in those released files - and this applies to all of us in all the forums which have taken an interest in this case, regardless of whether pro or anti.   Despite the occasional odd choice of vocabulary (the use of "intercalary" instead of interim report, for instance) and some grammar and syntactical awkwardness, those translations convey what was meant in the original.

However, it would have been out of the question for the McCanns or the English legal authorities to have relied on translations undertaken by unaccredited amateurs who were (and are) admittedly hostile to the McCanns.  Suggestions by some posters here that it was a waste of money to have the files professionally translated are quite absurd.

[AnneGuedes]

For reference I re-post here the relevant extract in Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment:

the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Para. 128 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html

Thank you for your answer, Chinagirl, and sorry I made a confusion. I thought you had posted Joana Morais had "missed out important parts of statements, because it didn't go against the McCanns". It wasn't you, it was DCI. The confusion happened because right after DCI's post you posted the professionally translated extract of the PGR's final document that was used in the trial against Mr Bennett, saying it illustrated the difference between professional and unprofessional translations.
I was unclear also when I asked for the "original". Actually to look for the extract in the Portuguese original (on paper, 58 pages), it would be easier if I had keywords of the unprofessional translation (I couldn't find it using keywords of the professional translation).
As you certainly compared the two translations, I was just asking if you had the unprofessional extract at hand. I'm really curious.
The rereading of a good if not professional translation is much quicker and then less expensive than a translation from the root, except for literature.
The understanding difficulties in the PJFiles aren't due to syntactic complexities. But even in simple sentences and even when languages are related like Romanic ones (French and Portuguese for instance),  false friends exist.
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?

[Eleanor]

Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines.  I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report.  "whether the child is alive or dead,  [OR]  which is the most likely."

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Sorry, I can't remember who did that.

[Chinagirl]

Thank you, Eleanor - I was just thinking about that one!
 

[AnneGuedes]

Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if...  I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !

[ferryman]

Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines.  I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report.  "whether the child is alive or dead,  [OR]  which is the most likely."

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Sorry, I can't remember who did that.

That was the prosecutor de Menezes, who reinforced that at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book by expressing the view that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead ...

[AnneGuedes]

GA's lawyer insisted and the PGR interpreted his (tricky on a syntactic point of view) sentence this way, in other words in the most neutral the most "non opinion" possible way.

[Redblossom]

Anne, I think these are the original pages that CG is referring to. last two paragraphs on page 4644 and first two paragraphs on page 4645





The translation from the PJ files by Astro (there are several paragraphs before the final sentence qualifying regarding the  lifting of the arguido status)

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

and the quote from Mr Justice from CG

"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”


Also, Anne, can you translate the last couple sentences in the first paragraph here. Does the PP say, regarding knowing whether she is alive or dead, that it seems more likely she is dead, or does he say, we dont know which is more likely? This is one of the disputed translation issues.

[DCI]

Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines.  I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report.  "whether the child is alive or dead,  [OR]  which is the most likely."

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Sorry, I can't remember who did that.

That was this one, Eleanor.

I see Morais has put bits back on since, this was posted nearly 2 years ago.

http://.....2.forumotion.co.uk/t85-the-final-report

[Eleanor]

Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines.  I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report.  "whether the child is alive or dead,  [OR]  which is the most likely."

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Sorry, I can't remember who did that.

That was the prosecutor de Menezes, who reinforced that at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book by expressing the view that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead ...

Yes it was Menezes who said it, but he put in the "OR".  I don't remember who left it out of the Translation.  But it was pretty damned blatant for a cheap shot.
And there were endless Threads on nasty sites saying that he believed that Madeleine was dead.
What a twit he looked in Court when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.

[Eleanor]

Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if...  I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !

There is nothing to talk about.  I saw it happen.   I read both Translations several times in case I had somehow misunderstood.  And of course it casts doubts on The Translations.  That is the whole point.

And hardly an ambiguity.  It isn't even an accidental mistranslation.

What is "OR" in Portuguese?  Thank you for your assistance in advance.

[DCI]

Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if...  I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !

There is nothing to talk about.  I saw it happen.   I read both Translations several times in case I had somehow misunderstood.  And of course it casts doubts on The Translations.  That is the whole point.

And hardly an ambiguity.  It isn't even an accidental mistranslation.

What is "OR" in Portuguese?  Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Then they say, there was no agenda.

[Eleanor]

Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if...  I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !

There is nothing to talk about.  I saw it happen.   I read both Translations several times in case I had somehow misunderstood.  And of course it casts doubts on The Translations.  That is the whole point.

And hardly an ambiguity.  It isn't even an accidental mistranslation.

What is "OR" in Portuguese?  Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Then they say, there was no agenda.

Of course there was an agenda.  That "mistake" had no purpose in Law because the original was always there.  It was done simply to add fuel to the fire of doubt against the McCanns.  To somehow affect public opinion.  This is what they did to Leonor Cipriano, once they had beaten her almost senseless.

So utterly stupid, but it seems to work in Portugal.