Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Mr Gray]

LOL

Cutting through diplobabble, I'd agree that they probably really did have little access.

However, if there was nothing to go on, what was Rainbows's cite based on? And this seemingly dated back to 1 June 07.

A general appreciation in the absence of any specific information?

rainbow had nothing to go on...and therefore he would not have known about any inconsistencies in the statements.....he would have said the parents should be looked at but I believe the second part re inconsistencies was an observation by amarals lawyer...al my opinion

[G-Unit]

How do we know what was read back was accurate... We don't... It may have been to Portuguese standards but those standards could well result in confusion which is exactly  what's happened imo

In my opinion it's not acceptable to accuse the interpreters of making mistakes without any evidence. I ask again; provide your evidence or admit that your allegations are unfounded.

In my opinion there have been efforts to create confusion, but they haven't succeeded in confusing me.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion it's not acceptable to accuse the interpreters of making mistakes without any evidence. I ask again; provide your evidence or admit that your allegations are unfounded.

In my opinion there have been efforts to create confusion, but they haven't succeeded in confusing me.

It is quite possible if not probable that mistakes we're made IMO... We do not have evidence to show that it did not happen.  That is, fair comment imo

[misty]

If there were no errors, then why were all the translations on the attached link revised?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/recently-revised-translations-t13549.html

[Alice Purjorick]

If there were no errors, then why were all the translations on the attached link revised?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/recently-revised-translations-t13549.html

We like errors that means we know the limits of what we are dealing with.
We like errors up to 2/12. That is a majority verdict in a UK Jury.
So provided the errors are not > 2/12 we is all happy;  right?

[G-Unit]

If there were no errors, then why were all the translations on the attached link revised?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/recently-revised-translations-t13549.html

I take it you are saying that the translations by volunteers of the statements in the PJ files were revised? That has no bearing whatsoever on the work of the interpreters.

[G-Unit]

It is quite possible if not probable that mistakes we're made IMO... We do not have evidence to show that it did not happen.  That is, fair comment imo

As you now seem to be admitting, that is your opinion, nothing else. You can't state as a fact that errors were made because you have no evidence. Or is the lack of evidence evidence of guilt this time in your opinion?

[Mr Gray]

As you now seem to be admitting, that is your opinion, nothing else. You can't state as a fact that errors were made because you have no evidence. Or is the lack of evidence evidence of guilt this time in your opinion?

And you cannot state as a fact that they are 100% accurate... Because we have no knowledge of the original
So how, accurate  are, they.... You just don't know

[misty]

I take it you are saying that the translations by volunteers of the statements in the PJ files were revised? That has no bearing whatsoever on the work of the interpreters.

If a translator is unable to be accurate when using the written word, what chance an interpreter working from the spoken word?

[Robittybob1]

One aspect of the file is the spelling of names.  The re-translated files that we can read have high proportion of names spelt wrongly.  In fact even within the PJ files there was variant spelling of surnames that would making searching digital files rather difficult.

[Alice Purjorick]

If a translator is unable to be accurate when using the written word, what chance an interpreter working from the spoken word?

Yeah and if you are a bloke be careful how you ask for a gaslighter to be filled, when in Italy.... slapped face country is that.
And in France never try to say "don't let the fire out" or your mate might be incarcerated in a loony bin.
As for German well let's start with Flugzeug ...every schoolboy's favourite, do you interpret as aeroplane or flying tool.
Best just stay north of the soggy bit at Dover; life can be so hard.

"Olivier's Hamlet pronounced success"
Ghoti anyone?
Gimme strength.

Why am I always reminded of this vis a vis PdL ?:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pooh+in+rabbit%27s+holonee+eh+shepard&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=n8Zt2BycIqnNKM%253A%252CTIPSsbuzcqtWKM%252C_&usg=__0Zw-BmuS5sFFPz7oLeTDcbS7px4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS2pfvzdjYAhUEKcAKHUSEAcMQ9QEIMzAE#imgrc=n8Zt2BycIqnNKM:

[Robittybob1]

I was about to start the on the Jane Tanner thread and the very first sentence I read IMO is the classic translation/interpretation error of the evidence that is evident throughout the file. 
Jane's 4th May statement "The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from." 

Now what does that mean and how come it has become a sentence that would be nothing like what Jane would ever say?

Taking a bit more of the statement to get the context of what was being said: "Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from."

So basically Jane is confirming "the entrance to the apartment building" or the drive in entrance way is off the street Jane saw the individual on.
There was no way she could see that he appeared out of the driveway and she never claims that but that is a possible interpretation of the translated statement.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

[Robittybob1]

there is another translation error that Jane Tanner mentions in Jane Tanner rogatory:

 "Reply    “Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.  But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower.  But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”."

[slartibartfast]

As you now seem to be admitting, that is your opinion, nothing else. You can't state as a fact that errors were made because you have no evidence. Or is the lack of evidence evidence of guilt this time in your opinion?

It does seem that the accusation of errors in interpretation is made with no evidence but more a desire to remove discrepancies from the narrative. If that were accepted as a general rule then unless recordings are made it would be virtually impossible a make a case through changing stories against a foreign language speaker.

[G-Unit]

And you cannot state as a fact that they are 100% accurate... Because we have no knowledge of the original
So how, accurate  are, they.... You just don't know

Those who do know, because they were there, agreed with what the statements said and signed to confirm that.