Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Carana]

Why would a lawyer say 'us'.

He wasn't the police.

"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

That doesn't make sense.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689

His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.

"The family is a lead that should be followed.

The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.

"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."

What makes perfect sense is that he was reading the comments from the report.

Then it makes sense.

Aside from the fact that Amaral's lawyer submitted an extract from what I presume to be a confidential report that isn't in the publicly available files, I don't have a problem with what Rainbow apparently wrote. Of course, anyone close to the missing child, by affiliation or by geographic proximity, should be thoroughly investigated.

Fairly elementary, isn't it?

Or was that supposed to be earth-shattering?

[Wonderfulspam]

Aside from the fact that Amaral's lawyer submitted an extract from what I presume to be a confidential report that isn't in the publicly available files, I don't have a problem with what Rainbow apparently wrote. Of course, anyone close to the missing child, by affiliation or by geographic proximity, should be thoroughly investigated.

Fairly elementary, isn't it?

Or was that supposed to be earth-shattering?

So where do you stand on this...

"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

Was this Amarals lawyer adding comment?

Or was it in the contents of the report?

The wording suggests it came from the report, does it not?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Of course, she could have been. But how is anyone supposed to judge? I find that there are questions marks surrounding the issue, not just in terms of proficiency, but in terms of what really does seem as a fairly chaotic situation for everyone.

The absence of any criticism of the wording of statements  by the parents is quite telling. The McCanns  and their family, not even in the country OR having had any dealings with the PJ, were slagging them off on every and any media outlet they could hogg - would have I am sure, added this to their lists of incompetences they had highlighted. Like you know the 'deal for Kate' scenario...

Instead of supporters trying as they do to blame everyone else, they should accept the McCanns are not fools and know exactly what they are doing. You can invent all different versions of what happened and blame everyone for not doing what the parents should have done in the first place  and that is care about the well being of young Maddie and her siblings. AND promoted themselves as victims to secure their reputations.

[Carana]

So where do you stand on this...

"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

Was this Amarals lawyer adding comment?

Or was it in the contents of the report?

The wording suggests it came from the report, does it not?

This bit suggests that it came from a report:

His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.

"The family is a lead that should be followed.

The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

I've no idea who "us" means, unless in a global law enforcement sense, or perhaps the NPIA alone, or NPIA together with other UK agencies. No idea. Not enough to go on.

What background information did Rainblow actually have? Was he simply presented with the two statements? Did he understand the potentially chaotic situation? When was this report written?

If so, how does that compute with the notion that the FLOs (on the "twins v Sean and me" saga) had no access to any information and wouldn't have had access to any documents at all?

[Wonderfulspam]

This bit suggests that it came from a report:

His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.

"The family is a lead that should be followed.

The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

I've no idea who "us" means, unless in a global law enforcement sense, or perhaps the NPIA alone, or NPIA together with other UK agencies. No idea. Not enough to go on.

What background information did Rainblow actually have? Was he simply presented with the two statements? Did he understand the potentially chaotic situation? When was this report written?

If so, how does that compute with the notion that the FLOs (on the "twins v Sean and me" saga) had no access to any information and wouldn't have had access to any documents at all?

That's probably because it did.

Let davel know that, as he hasn't quite grasped it.

You can scrub that one from the myths section & help stop the myths.

[Carana]

That's probably because it did.

Let davel know that, as he hasn't quite grasped it.

You can scrub that one from the myths section & help stop the myths.

But Cabrita's further comment seems to be his opinion:

Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.

"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."


ETA:
Is that report publicly accessible in the damages / libel trial documents?

ETA2: I wonder if that was Amaral's "ace"?

If so, hardly rocket science that anyone with potential physical access to her should be considered as a potential suspect.

[Wonderfulspam]

But Cabrita's further comment seems to be his opinion:

Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.

"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."

But nothing.

That part may be his opinion.

This part...

 "The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

.... wasn't.

[Carana]

But nothing.

That part may be his opinion.

This part...

 "The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

.... wasn't.

Not rocket science, though, is it?

Is there any indication as to when this report was written?

ETA: Yes, June 1 07.

[Carana]

And where does that leave us on the notion that the UK agencies (including the FLOs) had no access to initial documents?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8941.0

[Wonderfulspam]

The report didn't say,

The translation errors in Gerald McCanns witness statement might lead us to suspect a homicide.

It doesn't say that.

This was the conclusion of a British police agency, not something thought up by a 2nd rate foreign police force, therefore it is 100% accurate & correct.

There are contradictions & they aren't translation errors.

[Carana]

The report didn't say,

The translation errors in Gerald McCanns witness statement might lead us to suspect a homicide.

It doesn't say that.

This was the conclusion of a British police agency, not something thought up by a 2nd rate foreign police force, therefore it is 100% accurate & correct.

There are contradictions & they aren't translation errors.

If indeed there were any mishaps in the interpreting process, what evidence is there that Rainbow would have been aware of them at the time? Was he fully informed of the resources available at the time, or was he simply shown 2 seemingly differing statements?

[Wonderfulspam]

If indeed there were any mishaps in the interpreting process, what evidence is there that Rainbow would have been aware of them at the time? Was he fully informed of the resources available at the time, or was he simply shown 2 seemingly differing statements?

If?

You changed your tune, you always seem so certain before.

You're suggesting the NPIA were incompetent or ill informed.

I suspect the NPIA were privy to more information than forum ghouls can obtain.

[Mr Gray]

That's probably because it did.

Let davel know that, as he hasn't quite grasped it.

You can scrub that one from the myths section & help stop the myths.

You say probably  did... I say probably didn't.... Do you have any cite to show you are correct... The answer is no... I would say Rainbow said the parents should be investigated and the lawyer added his opinion to it... My opinion is as valid as yours or anyone  else

[Wonderfulspam]

You say probably  did... I say probably didn't.... Do you have any cite to show you are correct... The answer is no... I would say Rainbow said the parents should be investigated and the lawyer added his opinion to it... My opinion is as valid as yours or anyone  else

No, it's just obvious to anyone who understands English that the comment doesn't make any sense when used in the context you'd prefer.

[Mr Gray]

No, it's just obvious to anyone who understands English that the comment doesn't make any sense when used in the context you'd prefer.

You might think so... I disagree.... If you can show your opinion is correct then do... You cant