Has the discrepancy been discussed before - "did Kate enter by the front door"?

[G-Unit]

That sounds like a school kid marking their own exam papers.

It's a legally binding declaration by the interpreter with, I assume, legal consequences. No comparison at all.

[Mr Gray]

It's a legally binding declaration by the interpreter with, I assume, legal consequences. No comparison at all.

It may be legally binding but could you explain how it could possibly be challenged as there is no record of the witness statement.... Totally ridiculous

[G-Unit]

Rob asked for my source... I gave it... The wording is crystal  clear.... IMO it's ridiculous  to suggest there are no errors particularly as we have no record of the competence of the interpreters

I agree, the wording is clear, and it's clear it doesn't say what you said it did. The journalist says it, but 'the source' didn't, so her claim that the PJ said anything is misleading to say the least.

[barrier]

I think they flew out on 5th, Barrier.

At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm

According to the debrief it was the 4th,possibly starting work on the 5th then.

[Mr Gray]

I agree, the wording is clear, and it's clear it doesn't say what you said it did. The journalist says it, but 'the source' didn't, so her claim that the PJ said anything is misleading to say the least.

Perhaps you could be this critical on every newspaper  article.... You might then come to the conclusion  the mccanns are innocent... Imo

I had already realised translation  mistakes we're inevitable... This article  was just another small piece of the jigsaw

[Alice Purjorick]

'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html

That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in  the translation of documents

I has a question:

If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.

Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.

[Robittybob1]

'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html

That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in  the translation of documents

I has a question:

If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.

Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.

I interpret what you are saying as you are agreeing there must be some handwritten or typed notes made by the interpreter for which to judge the presence of errors.

[Mr Gray]

'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html

That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in  the translation of documents

I has a question:

If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.

Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.

We don't know... But presumably  SY and the present PJ investigation do... And they have both stated the mccanns are not suspects.... That SHOULD  answer the question

[Mr Gray]

'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html

That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in  the translation of documents

I has a question:

If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.

Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.

I note you... Like me... Accept  that there will be some errors

[Robittybob1]

'ere you go then Rob:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html

That is good for a laugh. Whatever the article is about its major purpose is nothing to do with errors in  the translation of documents

I has a question:

If there was no written record how would anyone know there had been a translation error? least of all some Wapping or Fleet Street journo.

Errors: It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that there will be some. What's an acceptable level? was that level exceeded?
The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant.

What would upset me more than "The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant"  is "The trick is knowing whether the errors were deliberate".
If Robert Murat was involved he would surely have inserted deliberate errors into the translations he completed.  I read that they didn't find any examples of deliberate errors.

[Brietta]

What would upset me more than "The trick is knowing whether the errors were significant"  is "The trick is knowing whether the errors were deliberate".
If Robert Murat was involved he would surely have inserted deliberate errors into the translations he completed.  I read that they didn't find any examples of deliberate errors.

I disagree with that hypothesis, Robitty.  In my opinion any translator would have been aware that statements could have been easily checked for deliberate translation errors.
Therefore in my opinion if initial errors were made they were inadvertant.
Were an individual so inclined the value to anyone involved in Madeleine's abduction would have been the knowledge of who had seen what, where and when. Great way to keep one jump ahead.

In the event I think Robert Murat was genuinely eager to help and just got caught up in a maelstrom partly because, in my opinion, of his own rather eccentric behaviour.

[Alice Purjorick]

I note you... Like me... Accept  that there will be some errors

It went without saying there would be errors.
What I don't understand is why you should make such a song and dance about it.

[Robittybob1]

I disagree with that hypothesis, Robitty.  In my opinion any translator would have been aware that statements could have been easily checked for deliberate translation errors.
Therefore in my opinion if initial errors were made they were inadvertant.
Were an individual so inclined the value to anyone involved in Madeleine's abduction would have been the knowledge of who had seen what, where and when. Great way to keep one jump ahead.

In the event I think Robert Murat was genuinely eager to help and just got caught up in a maelstrom partly because, in my opinion, of his own rather eccentric behaviour.

OK whatever it was that that made the PJ think he was involved, I did read they looked through his translations supposedly for errors. 

[Alice Purjorick]

I interpret what you are saying as you are agreeing there must be some handwritten or typed notes made by the interpreter for which to judge the presence of errors.

Incorrect.
My point was there probably are no such notes.
But even were there notes they would be put on file by the PP who would then decide whether or not they were released to the public when case was filed.
The issue is what were the journos using as their bench mark when banging on about errors in translation and how did they elicit this benchmark information in November 2007?
If there are no notes they cannot have seen them.
If there are notes then the PP or PJ handed them to the journos.
or we could have another conspiracy theory; ...................oh no! .....[exits stage left in a hurry even]

[Brietta]

OK whatever it was that that made the PJ think he was involved, I did read they looked through his translations supposedly for errors.

It is my understanding his work passed muster and having read the information about him in the files and his statements I have to admit he would have been my no1 suspect too had I been an investigating officer.
The fact is there was never any substantiating evidence to support that.