Please list all the translation errors in the PJ files

[Anna]

Information only:-
Some examples of translation errors can be found here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1865.msg58442#msg58442

[Benice]

So at this point we only have Kate's word for any errors. Is that correct ?

Why would she lie about the errors?    If the NOTW's lawyers required proof - then she could produce the evidence in her diary to show them that the version they published in the NOTW had been mistranslated. 

The idea that she decided, for some reason, to lie about errors in the NOTW's version of parts of her diary is just plain silly IMO.   Why would she do that?

[Carana]

But of course everyone who gave a statement signed those statements verifying that they were a true representation of their words.

Well, yes. Signing on the dotted line in an unfathomable language could happen to you or me during an initial statement made to the police if one of us had had to make a statement in Thailand or Timbuktoo.

There is no way of objectively verifying what the entire process was.

What seems hugely unlikely to me is that there would have been time for a typed English version for the witnesses to read through, and even if there had, there would be no way of guaranteeing that the PT version was identical to the hasty English one and the PT one was the only one with any judicial value.

The crucial thing to get done on that day was to get the judicial ball rolling to deploy more means to find the missing child...

I can find absolutely no reason why Gerry would have lied about which door he used to enter on his check. I really think it was just one of those lost-in-confusion issues with three people getting muddled over which door was considered to be the front one and which was the back one.

Simple as that.

[Brietta]

Information only:-
Some examples of translation errors can be found here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1865.msg58442#msg58442

Thanks for the link Anna ... well worth the read ... even for this gem from Mrs B ...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1865.msg58460#msg58460  ... what an unintelligible mouthful the Pamalam site translation is (very Googly) in comparison with the professionally translated version which can be easily read in Queen's English.

[Brietta]

Information only:-
Some examples of translation errors can be found here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1865.msg58442#msg58442

I am only on page 2 of a 10 page thread and one comment I feel appropriate is to remark on the quality of the debate from only two years ago with differences of opinion being discussed with some level of maturity.

Maybe continuation to the last few pages will degenerate into the ad hominem attacks and mantras which seem to characterise what now passes for debate two years down the line.

What a pity we posters have not improved with age and built on the past virtues of this wonderful forum.  Not too late though.

[Benice]

Thanks for the link Anna ... well worth the read ... even for this gem from Mrs B ...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1865.msg58460#msg58460  ... what an unintelligible mouthful the Pamalam site translation is (very Googly) in comparison with the professionally translated version which can be easily read in Queen's English.

IMO The proof of a professional translation - is that when you are reading it you have no idea that is has been translated.

IMO a good example of this are the parts of the AG's report quoted by Judge Tugenhat from the professionally translated filed submitted to him by Carter Ruck in the Bennet case. 


Quote

"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".

[G-Unit]

Well, yes. Signing on the dotted line in an unfathomable language could happen to you or me during an initial statement made to the police if one of us had had to make a statement in Thailand or Timbuktoo.

There is no way of objectively verifying what the entire process was.

What seems hugely unlikely to me is that there would have been time for a typed English version for the witnesses to read through, and even if there had, there would be no way of guaranteeing that the PT version was identical to the hasty English one and the PT one was the only one with any judicial value.

The crucial thing to get done on that day was to get the judicial ball rolling to deploy more means to find the missing child...

I can find absolutely no reason why Gerry would have lied about which door he used to enter on his check. I really think it was just one of those lost-in-confusion issues with three people getting muddled over which door was considered to be the front one and which was the back one.

Simple as that.

You can't think of any reason why Gerald McCann would have lied about which door he used because your starting point is your conviction that the McCanns are entirely innocent. Thus any evidence which shows he changed his story must be wrong.

If you look at it from an open-minded point of view, with no assumption of innocence, then you are able to consider why he changed his story. It's then possible to find reasons by considering other evidence.
Simple as that.

[Carana]

You can't think of any reason why Gerald McCann would have lied about which door he used because your starting point is your conviction that the McCanns are entirely innocent. Thus any evidence which shows he changed his story must be wrong.

If you look at it from an open-minded point of view, with no assumption of innocence, then you are able to consider why he changed his story. It's then possible to find reasons by considering other evidence.
Simple as that.

I have never denied that he possibly changed his story and that all there may have been absolutely accurate (the exhausted and panicked dad, the PJ officer who was on duty that morning, and the lady brought in to help the communication process).

If this had all been planned beforehand, why wouldn't Gerry and Kate have harmonised their differeing versions (Kate having been interviewed later that day, once the initital confusion had potentially been clarified)?

Why would Gerry have stated - in the SAME interview - that he exited via the sliding door and that Matt had entered via it?

If there had been anything untoward going on, why would Matt have been allowed to check at all? Unless he was "innit", wouldn't that have been risky? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply insist on going to check as well and then pretend to panic?

[Mr Gray]

You can't think of any reason why Gerald McCann would have lied about which door he used because your starting point is your conviction that the McCanns are entirely innocent. Thus any evidence which shows he changed his story must be wrong.

If you look at it from an open-minded point of view, with no assumption of innocence, then you are able to consider why he changed his story. It's then possible to find reasons by considering other evidence.
Simple as that.

the evidence you are using is flawed meaning your conclusions are flawed...simple as that

[Benice]

You can't think of any reason why Gerald McCann would have lied about which door he used because your starting point is your conviction that the McCanns are entirely innocent. Thus any evidence which shows he changed his story must be wrong.

If you look at it from an open-minded point of view, with no assumption of innocence, then you are able to consider why he changed his story. It's then possible to find reasons by considering other evidence.
Simple as that.

But why would he lie about which door he used?   What did he have to gain?

And why wasn't he then asked the patently obvious question by the interviewing officer  i.e  Why did you walk past the door which was a mere couple of yards away -  and decide to go the long way round?

I suggest that at that stage (i.e. the very first interview) the interviewer was not familiar enough with the layout to notice what a strange thing it would be for Gerry to do - i.e.  to walk past the nearest entrance and go the long way round -  and so did not realise that that was what he was supposedly claiming  - and so did not ask the question.

If he had  asked that question, then I think any misunderstandings about doors would have been cleared up at that point.

The fact that no explanation was given as to why Gerry changed his statement suggests to me that that question was never asked at any stage.    If it was then surely his reply would be recorded  - as the reason why he made such a strange decision would be very pertinent IMO.    I for one would love to know what Gerry's explanation could possibly be - as I can't think of a single credible reason.

AIMHO.

[Brietta]

No idea when the amendment to the page was made ... but I don't know if the final translation here is any better than the first containing the translator's addendum.


Important note: The following text inserted in brackets into Gerry McCanns statement [with no way to tell the time], has now been removed to eliminate any confusion. The bracketed text is the translators note, and not part of the original statement.   
Text before removal: Half and hour later, without anything to signal [with no way to tell the time], it being 22h03

Text now reads: Half and hour later without anything to signal, it being 22h03
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

[ferryman]

But why would he lie about which door he used?   What did he have to gain?

And why wasn't he then asked the patently obvious question by the interviewing officer  i.e  Why did you walk past the door which was a mere couple of yards away -  and decide to go the long way round?

I suggest that at that stage (i.e. the very first interview) the interviewer was not familiar enough with the layout to notice what a strange thing it would be for Gerry to do - i.e.  to walk past the nearest entrance and go the long way round -  and so did not realise that that was what he was supposedly claiming  - and so did not ask the question.

If he had  asked that question, then I think any misunderstandings about doors would have been cleared up at that point.

The fact that no explanation was given as to why Gerry changed his statement suggests to me that that question was never asked at any stage.    If it was then surely his reply would be recorded  - as the reason why he made such a strange decision would be very pertinent IMO.    I for one would love to know what Gerry's explanation could possibly be - as I can't think of a single credible reason.

AIMHO.

Confusion over prepositions cannot -- and should never be -- conflated with "lies".

One person's "front" might be another person's "back".

[Mr Gray]

Does anyone understand why some police forces take the trouble to record interviews if the non verbatim summaries are reliable

[ferryman]

I don't believe, for one moment, that the prosecutors said anything as fascist as that the McCanns lost a chance to "prove" their innocence ....

[Carana]

Does anyone understand why some police forces take the trouble to record interviews if the non verbatim summaries are reliable

If CCTV is standard practice throughout and all interviews are recorded... I would give much more credence to someone appparently confessing voluntarily to a crime (as opposed to a situation which may have been staged), assuming that it could be corroborated.