Translations translations and then some...are they reliable or biased?

[DCI]

Have you a link proving the McCanns' translator(s) were really good ones (just one example of a misunderstanding in the files' "unprofessional" translation will do) or is it just speculation?

Seems even Google translate is more honest, than some translators.

[AnneGuedes]

Seems even Google translate is more honest, than some translators.

Are you planning to have all the files translated by Google automate ?

[Rachel Granada]

Have you a link proving the McCanns' translator(s) were really good ones (just one example of a misunderstanding in the files' "unprofessional" translation will do) or is it just speculation?

Salut, Anne. I have no idea about the translations that the McCanns had done - although I would wager that they were from a professionaly accredited translation agency.

The most important point is that Scotland Yard WILL have professional, accurately-translated files at their disposal.

[AnneGuedes]

Salut, Anne. I have no idea about the translations that the McCanns had done - although I would wager that they were from a professionaly accredited translation agency.

The most important point is that Scotland Yard WILL have professional, accurately-translated files at their disposal.

Salut Rachel, ma belle ! I wonder what information has Mrs B about the "properly translated" files detained by the McCanns.

[Mrs. B]

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

This is a UK HIGH COURT DOCUMENT -

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
____________________

Between:
(1) GERRY MCCANN (2) KATE MCCANN
Claimant
- and -

TONY BENNETT
Defendant
___________

- it contains a translation of the conclusions of the AG's legal summary, presented to the Court by Carter Ruck. Are you under the illusion that a High Court in the UK would accept anything BUT a certified professional translation of any kind? Or did you think you could just quote source as  "Pamalam's site" or "translated by Ines"  to the UK High Court?

Either way, it's mentioned here too

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gerry-mccann-returns-to-portugal-as-cops-1665163

[AnneGuedes]

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

This is a UK HIGH COURT DOCUMENT -

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
____________________

Between:
(1) GERRY MCCANN (2) KATE MCCANN
Claimant
- and -

TONY BENNETT
Defendant
___________

- it contains a translation of the conclusions of the AG's legal summary, presented to the Court by Carter Ruck. Are you under the illusion that a High Court in the UK would accept anything BUT a certified professional translation of any kind? Or did you think you could just quote source as  "Pamalam's site" or "translated by Ines"  to the UK High Court?

Either way, it's mentioned here too

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gerry-mccann-returns-to-portugal-as-cops-1665163

This is not what I asked, Mrs. B. As you assumed the McCanns had "properly translated" files, I solicited an example showing the difference. I think I noted some slight "interpretations" in the PGR report's translation. There was a debate on this on a thread, I think Chinagirl originated it.
If the translation paid by the Fund was "professional", why did SY ask another translation?

[Mrs. B]

Professional translation presented to the High Court:

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…


Version on Pamalm's site:

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.

=====

ETA Whether NSY have their own translations or if they're using the McCanns' I simply don't know. The good thing about professionally accredited translations is that they can be used by ANYONE, so I guess it's possible they have been given a copy.

[AnneGuedes]

ETA Whether NSY have their own translations or if they're using the McCanns' I simply don't know. The good thing about professionally accredited translations is that they can be used by ANYONE, so I guess it's possible they have been given a copy.

I seem to remember they argued the review hadn't even contemplated one third because of the translation issue.

[DCI]

This is not what I asked, Mrs. B. As you assumed the McCanns had "properly translated" files, I solicited an example showing the difference. I think I noted some slight "interpretations" in the PGR report's translation. There was a debate on this on a thread, I think Chinagirl originated it.
If the translation paid by the Fund was "professional", why did SY ask another translation?

SY would have had to have their own translations done. Thats a bit like saying why didn't they use Amarals version!

Detectives spent the first five months reading a huge file of case material which had to be translated into English from Portuguese.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/scotland-yard-officers-in-spain-as-search-for-maddy-crosses-the-border-6375207.html

[faithlilly]

The only mention re. the break-in in her statement is the following:

When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence.

No details whatsoever about the actual incidents from what I can find.

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

Exactly. No mention of a front door being opened as DCI claimed.

[Mrs. B]

And no mention of the old lady heroically trying to drag the thief BACK into the apartment by his ankles either, funny enough...

[AnneGuedes]

Professional translation presented to the High Court:

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…


Version on Pamalm's site:

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.

=====

ETA Whether NSY have their own translations or if they're using the McCanns' I simply don't know. The good thing about professionally accredited translations is that they can be used by ANYONE, so I guess it's possible they have been given a copy.

Mrs. B, I don't know who and under which conditions the translations financed by the Fund were done, but all I can tell is that the extract you sent is worse than Astro's translation. Seing only that extract I'll not risk saying it is biased, but I confirm Astro's translation is the only rigorous one.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's arguido "person of interest" is missing parents  in any criminally the original says "penally"* significant action is apparent this is wrong : seems to result (I admit the PGR is not well at ease and his syntax betrays it) 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…namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine (missing ?)
* For instance, if they concealed their daughter's body, it is not penally relevant, whereas if they'd killed their daughter, that would be "criminal".
I just hope that the SY's translations are better than the McCann's ones.

[DCI]

I just hope that the SY's translations are better than the McCann's ones.

Where have you seen the McCann's one's, Anne?

[DCI]

Exactly. No mention of a front door being opened as DCI claimed.

Take it up with mccann files, they posted it, from the Express 

[Mrs. B]

Mrs. B, I don't know who and under which conditions the translations financed by the Fund were done, but all I can tell is that the extract you sent is worse than Astro's translation. Seing only that extract I'll not risk saying it is biased, but I confirm Astro's translation is the only rigorous one.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's arguido "person of interest" is missing parents  in any criminally the original says "penally"* significant action is apparent this is wrong : seems to result (I admit the PGR is not well at ease and his syntax betrays it) 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…namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine (missing ?)
* For instance, if they concealed their daughter's body, it is not penally relevant, whereas if they'd killed their daughter, that would be "criminal".
I just hope that the SY's translations are better than the McCann's ones.

No the first version is translated into proper ENGLISH, that's the hallmark of a professional translation, they're generally a lot shorter. The second version is translated into something akin to Pigeon English.