For Albertini ...

[AnneGuedes]

TRANSLATIONS BY ASTRO

Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive OR if she is dead, as seems more likely.

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

Is it honest, DCI ?

[Eleanor]

There were two translations of The AG's Statement.  One as quoted by Anne Guedes and one as quoted by me.  I was not the only one who saw my version.
And I imply do not believe that The Attorney General would have passed a personal opinion on a Legal Document when there was and still is no evidence of either conclusion.  For a start it would have wrecked any possibility of a Trial involving The McCanns.  And quite possibly the trial of any other person if no body is ever found.  Attorney Generals just don't do this sort of thing.

[AnneGuedes]

Who is the person who translated
"(apurar) se ainda está viva ou se está morta, como parece mais provável" ((establish) if she is still alive or if she is dead, as it seems more likely)
into "whether the child is alive or dead, OR which is the most likely." ?

[Carana]

TRANSLATIONS BY ASTRO

Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive OR if she is dead, as seems more likely.

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

That's how I understand it as well.

[AnneGuedes]

Astro's translation is obviously right.
I wonder who did the Elearnor's one.
I wonder also why DCI put in capital letters an uncontroversial "or" in Astro's translation.

[Chinagirl]

Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of the translation, it's a poor piece of English, and yet another example of why professional (and non biased) translations of the files was needed by both the McCanns and the SY review team.

[AnneGuedes]

Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of the translation, it's a poor piece of English, and yet another example of why professional (and non biased) translations of the files was needed by both the McCanns and the SY review team.

"Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of the translation" ? Amazing !
Isn't accuracy and only accuracy what matters ? Is the likely "professional" but erroneous translation, launched by Eleanor against Astro's one, your idea of a "rich piece of English" ?
If so, no comment.
Just tell how you can judge, Chinagirl, whether the original is a poor or a rich piece of Portuguese !

[sadie]

"Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of the translation" ? Amazing !
Isn't accuracy and only accuracy what matters ? Is the likely "professional" but erroneous translation, launched by Eleanor against Astro's one, your idea of a "rich piece of English" ?
If so, no comment.
Just tell how you can judge, Chinagirl, whether the original is a poor or a rich piece of Portuguese !

When a persons future is at stake, then accuracy is imperative.

[Chinagirl]

Interesting to note that Albertini has declined to answer two questions raised yesterday by davel and me.  Perhaps - hopefully - he has realised how erroneous is his contention that the archiving summary stated that the McCanns had "failed to demonstrate their innocence."  Repeatedly Albertini has asserted that this is what the AG stated in his summary.  Not so.  Here, yet again, are the relevant paragraphs from the summary:

 Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

Despite the laboured English of the above translation, the AG clearly states: "We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos."  Note the preposition "to," not "by."  This is the crux of the whole matter.

As has been manifestly pointed out in this thread and several others on this subject, in a democratic legal system no one is ever required to "prove their innocence."  Whether a suspect subject to a police investigation, or an accused at trial, one retains the presumption of innocence until a verdict is handed down in court.

This matter should now, finally, be put to bed.
 

[Albertini]

Nope not really interesting at all. I have been unavailable on the forum due to work and family commitments.

I will come back you later when i have the time.

You lot make me laugh! You even regard my absence as a sign of a lost argument, rather than it being that i have other things going on in my life.

Deary me!

[Carana]

There were two translations of The AG's Statement.  One as quoted by Anne Guedes and one as quoted by me.  I was not the only one who saw my version.
And I imply do not believe that The Attorney General would have passed a personal opinion on a Legal Document when there was and still is no evidence of either conclusion.  For a start it would have wrecked any possibility of a Trial involving The McCanns.  And quite possibly the trial of any other person if no body is ever found.  Attorney Generals just don't do this sort of thing.

Eleanor,

I've no doubt that you did indeed see the translation you mention, but it's simply not what the original actually says.

"Como parece" doesn't mean "or which" (which in any case ought to have been "nor"). It does mean "as seems".

Why would saying that wreck a trial?

In that text, he did state that it seemed more likely that she could be dead, which I understand as meaning on the balance of probabilities (i.e., not that many children are found alive after such a long time).  At the same time, he certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that she could indeed still be alive.

Interestingly, however, at the injunction trial Menezes gives equal weight to both possibilities:

jondipaolo: The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
11:40

[stephen25000]

FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES....................................


In English speaking countries, we use the common  law as the basis of our legal system. In its origins, the Norman French occupied England, which was largely unsettled and not at all well policed. So it became relatively easy to have someone charged with a crime, since witnesses were rare. Juries were used to decide guilt and the facts of the case because the Normans did not speak the vernacular very well.  Over time, the burden of proof was placed upon the accuser, later the Crown. It has been that way in our system for nearly a eight hundred years.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

 

The origins of law in France, Italy, Spain and a few other places, they follow what is called "civil law," which also includes criminal law. The historical antecedents of that system are the Code Justinian, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis  church law, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law the customary law of the place, and the Code Napoleon, which was a re-codification of existing law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code

 

Under that system, it is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and to only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence to justify them. If accused, the defendant has the duty to try to show the state where it is was wrong in its investigation.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor,

I've no doubt that you did indeed see the translation you mention, but it's simply not what the original actually says.

"Como parece" doesn't mean "or which" (which in any case ought to have been "nor"). It does mean "as seems".

Why would saying that wreck a trial?

In that text, he did state that it seemed more likely that she could be dead, which I understand as meaning on the balance of probabilities (i.e., not that many children are found alive after such a long time).  At the same time, he certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that she could indeed still be alive.

Interestingly, however, at the injunction trial Menezes gives equal weight to both possibilities:

jondipaolo: The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.
11:40

50/50%  as stated in Court by Menezes hardly seems to mean that it is more likely that Madeleine is dead.

And, Or.  To, By.  Isn't this the crux of suspect translations? Whether accidentally or otherwise?

And for The Attorney General to make a judgement in a legal document without any evidence is at the very least fool hardy.  It would mean that he had formed an opinion which would automatically mean that he believed The McCanns to be guilty if they had ever gone to trial.  This could have prejudiced the trial.  And I can't see him making a dumb mistake like that.
However, as this would have favoured The McCanns, I really don't know why I should care.

[Mr Gray]

Nope not really interesting at all. I have been unavailable on the forum due to work and family commitments.

I will come back you later when i have the time.

You lot make me laugh! You even regard my absence as a sign of a lost argument, rather than it being that i have other things going on in my life.

Deary me!

you have been back and posted but have not answered the questions.Lets wait and see if you can answer them

[Mr Gray]

FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES....................................


In English speaking countries, we use the common  law as the basis of our legal system. In its origins, the Norman French occupied England, which was largely unsettled and not at all well policed. So it became relatively easy to have someone charged with a crime, since witnesses were rare. Juries were used to decide guilt and the facts of the case because the Normans did not speak the vernacular very well.  Over time, the burden of proof was placed upon the accuser, later the Crown. It has been that way in our system for nearly a eight hundred years.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law




 

The origins of law in France, Italy, Spain and a few other places, they follow what is called "civil law," which also includes criminal law. The historical antecedents of that system are the Code Justinian, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis  church law, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law the customary law of the place, and the Code Napoleon, which was a re-codification of existing law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code

 

Under that system, it is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and to only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence to justify them. If accused, the defendant has the duty to try to show the state where it is was wrong in its investigation.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

You have misunderstood this, we have civil law in the uk too. Famously in the US oj simpson was found not guilty under criminal law but was sued under civil law for damages which he lost. The charges against the McCanns would be criminal law. the defendant has no duty to prove innocence and in fact has a right to silence.