Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Wonderfulspam]

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

I don't need to. It just is.

[Mr Gray]

I don't need to. It just is.

It doesn't matter what you think nor what I think

[Wonderfulspam]

It doesn't matter what you think nor what I think

What matters are the facts.

And according to Rowley, the fact is abduction.

Although, I can't understand why he didn't help the McCanns with their appeal to the SC.

[Mr Gray]

What matters are the facts.

And according to Rowley, the fact is abduction.

Although, I can't understand why he didn't help them with their appeal to the SC.

Yes what matters, are the facts... According  to both investigations mccanns not suspects

[Mr Gray]

I don't think any of the translation  errors are of any relevance now... All misunderstandings cleared up imo

[Admin]

As it is breach of the forum rules to discuss members who post elsewhere I have removed the first few posts of this thread and renamed it.

Admin

[slartibartfast]

I don't think any of the translation  errors are of any relevance now... All misunderstandings cleared up imo

If you mean discrepancies you should say so. Misunderstandings is IYO as is cleared up which isn't how you have put it.

[G-Unit]

The statements conclude with... Read ratifies and signs...
We know the mccanns did not read their statements

I can see no difference between an interpreter reading a statement to a witness in Portugal  and a police officer reading a statement to an illiterate witness in the UK;

Once the statement has been written, the police officer will ask you to read through it to check that it is right. If you want you can ask the police officer to read your statement to you.

You will be asked to sign the statement to say that it is an accurate account of what you think happened.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-statement-police

[G-Unit]

I don't think any of the translation  errors are of any relevance now... All misunderstandings cleared up imo

The 'translation errors' which are simply unfounded allegations you mean?

[Mr Gray]

I can see no difference between an interpreter reading a statement to a witness in Portugal  and a police officer reading a statement to an illiterate witness in the UK;

Once the statement has been written, the police officer will ask you to read through it to check that it is right. If you want you can ask the police officer to read your statement to you.

You will be asked to sign the statement to say that it is an accurate account of what you think happened.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-statement-police

Do you know what the guidelines are for an illiterate witness signing a statement in the uk... I doubt very much it could be used in evidence against them

There is no way those statements can be verified as there is no record of the mccanns actual words.  In the uk they would
No comply with our guidelines... Portugal may not have such rigorous standards

[Alice Purjorick]

In English  law, those signatures word be worthless for obvious reasons.... It appears the Portuguese system was woefully  short of decent  standards.. Imo

That may well be the case but that is the hand which was dealt.
You either play it or fold. Complaining about misdeals and procrastinating will only put off the inevitable day when you have to play the hand you were dealt.

[Alice Purjorick]

The thread title is:
"Were the translation errors of critical relevance?"
May we please have examples of these translation errors?

The OP says:
"The statements conclude with... Read ratifies and signs...
We know the mccanns did not read their statements"

Which are we discussing?
I would hate to wax all lyrical ony to find it was disappeared in a puff of green smoke for being off topic..

[Carana]

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.

I was thinking of the other discussion (I linked to the thread earlier) on the discussion re the FLOs, where the suggestion by a poster was that they wouldn't have had access to the initial statement(s).

The debrief does say that the UK had little access (but not that they didn't have any at any point).

My questions are: what did the UK agencies have access to in terms of the PJ statements?  Were they aware of the conditions? Did Rainbow have access to anything more than the statements? Is it rocket science to suggest that those close to the missing child (in any sense of the term) shouldn't be considered as suspects until eliminated?

[Carana]

My point is: how much access did the UK police have, in the initial phase, to be able to form a point of view?

Totally open question.

[Carana]

I have no idea whether any translation or lost-in-confusion errors occurred (although I fnd that quite likely).

Whether any were criticial.... in what sense?

If the PJ really didn't take time to consider that just possibly, eventuallly, something had got screwed up in a lost-in-confusion issue, then I find it difficult to imagine that they were really experienced.

Perhaps the aim of the 2nd round was because they actually did try to verify if anything in that initial phase could have been lost in the general chaos. If so, good on them.