Please list all the translation errors in the PJ files

[stephen25000]

That just about sums up the case for the PJ...Fortunately SY are sorting things out

Of course they are. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[Alfred R Jones]

No one want to venture a reason why Gerry wasn't questioned about the hugely significant key issue when he was made an arguido?

[ferryman]

No one want to venture a reason why Gerry wasn't questioned about the hugely significant key issue when he was made an arguido?

Erm.

They believed what he said in his pre-arguido interviews?

[faithlilly]

No one want to venture a reason why Gerry wasn't questioned about the hugely significant key issue when he was made an arguido?

Perhaps because he had already explained in his May 10th interview ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Perhaps because he had already explained in his May 10th interview ?

So if the police were satisfied with the explanation why is it still brought up ad nauseam by "sceptics"?

[Mr Gray]

So if the police were satisfied with the explanation why is it still brought up ad nauseam by "sceptics"?

we have no way of knowing if Gerry gave a much fuller explanation of his previous statement which the PJ found satisfactory and the translator merely recorded the conclusion

[faithlilly]

So if the police were satisfied with the explanation why is it still brought up ad nauseam by "sceptics"?

Not sure what the police being satisfied has to do with it. Gerry gave an explanation for the error. How do you think they should have reacted if they had no evidence to counter his explanation ?

[Mr Gray]

During his arguido statement Gerry was in the station for 6 hours...are we to believe that the online statement is an accurate account of all that was said...rubbish

[Alfred R Jones]

Not sure what the police being satisfied has to do with it. Gerry gave an explanation for the error. How do you think they should have reacted if they had no evidence to counter his explanation ?

If this was a significant discrepancy I would have expected it to have been referenced in the arguido interview and archiving report.  The fact is it wasn't significant, despite sceptics best efforts to treat it as such.

[Alfred R Jones]

How would one expect the police to treat a significant discrepancy in a witness statement, once the witness had become a suspect?  I would expect them to closely question the suspect about that discrepancy, to query why the original statement had been changed and to put pressure on the suspect to come clean, what would you expect the police to do Faithlilly?  Not mention it at all?  Be satisfied with the explanation given as a witness? 

[G-Unit]

Not sure what the police being satisfied has to do with it. Gerry gave an explanation for the error. How do you think they should have reacted if they had no evidence to counter his explanation ?

We know how they reacted. They noted it along with other discrepancies in the statements. It was these discrepancies that, added together, led the police to suspect the parents.

[Mr Gray]

We know how they reacted. They noted it along with other discrepancies in the statements. It was these discrepancies that, added together, led the police to suspect the parents.

and we all know that amaral got it spectacularly wrong...they are not suspects now

[Alfred R Jones]

We know how they reacted. They noted it along with other discrepancies in the statements. It was these discrepancies that, added together, led the police to suspect the parents.

Why did the police not closely question the McCanns about all these supposed discrepancies when they were interviewed as arguidos then?  Where is the reference to all these hugely significant discrepancies in the Final Report?

[Benice]

We know how they reacted. They noted it along with other discrepancies in the statements. It was these discrepancies that, added together, led the police to suspect the parents.

If you read through the witness statements there are loads of discrepancies by loads of witnesses - especially when it comes to times and distances.

It would appear however that while those discrepancies are regarded as 'normal' (which they are) - any discrepancies in the group's statements are regarded as 'suspicious'.   

Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)

4078    “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.

[G-Unit]

Why did the police not closely question the McCanns about all these supposed discrepancies when they were interviewed as arguidos then?  Where is the reference to all these hugely significant discrepancies in the Final Report?

It was because of the discrepancies that the reconsitution was needed;

The aforementioned persons were interviewed carefully and in great detail, on various occasions (see index), with the intention to collect all the relevant elements that could help the investigation to uncover the truth regarding the facts.

The analysis of the grouping of these inquiries emphasized the existence of important details which were not entirely understood and integrated, which needed to be, from our viewpoint, tested and compared together [concatenated] in the actual location.

As such, a concrete understanding of the lack of synergy of some aspects of elevated relevance should be attempted through a processed diligence via the reconstitution of the facts, which, due to a lack of collaboration of several relevant witnesses, was not able to be accomplished, in spite of all the force brought by the authorities.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm