The child gate located at the top of the steps.

[jassi]

As it is inconceivable that the McCanns would be allowed to be brought to trial, it is irrelevant whether certain evidence would, or would not stand in court.

[mercury]

so you are under the illusion that these statements would be admissible as evidence

Do you have any cite of where and when translated witness statements from foreign nationals have not been allowed in a court of law in Portugal? There must be plenty of cases where foreign nationals have been in court.

The difference in language didn't seem to be a problem in the Mccanns' recent trial in Portugal. Excuse me for a while whilst I catch up.

@Benice

It was not a matter of what a policeman "believed" in any summary. There was the small matter of a translator who was in between the policeman and the witness.

[Mr Gray]

Do you have any cite of where and when translated witness statements from foreign nationals have not been allowed in a court of law in Portugal? There must be plenty of cases where foreign nationals have been in court.

The difference in language didn't seem to be a problem in the Mccanns' recent trial in Portugal. Excuse me for a while whilst I catch up.

@Benice

It was not a matter of what a policeman "believed" in any summary. There was the small matter of a translator who was in between the policeman and the witness.

So you think these statements would be admissable on a court were the mccanns to be tried

[Eleanor]

So you think these statements would be admissable on a court were the mccanns to be tried

No second hand, translated statement would be admissible in a Court of Law.

[mercury]

So you think these statements would be admissable on a court were the mccanns to be tried

I asked first

 

Same questions go to Eleanor, she might know too.

[Mr Gray]

I asked first

 

Same questions go to Eleanor, she might know too.

the statements could not be used against the McCanns.....do you doubt my super intelligence and knowledge

[mercury]

the statements could not be used against the McCanns.....do you doubt my super intelligence and knowledge

Is there any particular reason why you cannot answer my question? Here is another. Who said anything about anyone using translated statements "against" the Mccanns? Or are some statements OK but others aren't? Or are all translated statements disallowed in courts?
Awaiting your cites.

[Mr Gray]

Is there any particular reason why you cannot answer my question? Here is another. Who said anything about anyone using translated statements "against" the Mccanns? Or are some statements OK but others aren't? Or are all translated statements disallowed in courts?
Awaiting your cites.

There are several reasons why none of those statements would be acceptable as evidence against the McCanns...I'm surprised I'm the only one who realises

[mercury]

There are several reasons why none of those statements would be acceptable as evidence against the McCanns...I'm surprised I'm the only one who realises

Again, you have ignored my post and not answered any of my questions. I can only assume it is because you cannot back up your statements or "realisations". It's good to share. This is not a competition of one upmanship.

 



Oh well.

[Mr Gray]

Again, you have ignored my post and not answered any of my questions. I can only assume it is because you cannot back up your statements or "realisations". It's good to share. This is not a competition of one upmanship.

 



Oh well.

first they were interviewed as witnesses...not arguidos. Do you understand the concept of being interviewed under caution in the UK...this is similar to arguido status in Portugal.
in the Uk unless a suspect is cautioned none of his statements can be used in court...in Portugal unless the witness is an arguido...none of the statements can be used in court

[Eleanor]

the statements could not be used against the McCanns.....do you doubt my super intelligence and knowledge

'ere, what about mine?  Although I do have to say that it doesn't take much to work it out.

[mercury]

first they were interviewed as witnesses...not arguidos. Do you understand the concept of being interviewed under caution in the UK...this is similar to arguido status in Portugal.
in the Uk unless a suspect is cautioned none of his statements can be used in court...in Portugal unless the witness is an arguido...none of the statements can be used in court

Thanks, finally!
Why did it take you three pages to explain then? I will for the moment assume you are correct, although I could be terribly wrong.


You gave the impression that it was the translation issue that would be the problem in court, as in this post of yours:

You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court

Perhaps you should take the time to flesh your posts out, and not conflate disparate issues without explanation, and make posts a little clearer in future?

[Mr Gray]

Thanks, finally!
Why did it take you three pages to explain then? I will for the moment assume you are correct, although I could be terribly wrong.


You gave the impression that it was the translation issue that would be the problem in court, as in this post of yours:

You do not have any verbatim statement by Gerry...none of these police statements would be accepted as evidence in a court

Perhaps you should take the time to flesh your posts out, and not conflate disparate issues without explanation, and make posts a little clearer in future?

You assumed I was referring solely to the translation issues.....your problem. having said that I cannot see any court accepting statements that witnesses are asked to sign when it is clear that they do not understand what they are signing.

[mercury]

IMO if people were asked now they would remember the blue lever and whether they operated it.
I would have an identical gate in interview room to educate interviewer.
If it was always locked we can probably rule out wandering.

The police ruled out the woke and wandered and nearby somewhere theory early on. The 4th May statement gathering seems to have been a gathering basic information exercise. By the 10th May where more detailed questions were asked, it was obvious to them  Madeleine did not walk and wonder to somewhere nearby as she would have been found probably (and indeed has never been found since) and therefore whether she went out of the apartment herself via any means and was abducted or whether abducted from inside, was a moot point.

[mercury]

You assumed I was referring solely to the translation issues.....your problem. having said that I cannot see any court accepting statements that witnesses are asked to sign when it is clear that they do not understand what they are signing.

Why would anyone assume anythng else if that is all you posted, unless you want people to be mind readers!

As for signing any statement, if it was read back in English then I assume, the English speaker understood English so yes, presumably they would understand what they were signing.