I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.
The other bit is about how confusion may be sown without really trying.
In my example what all three translators/interpreters should have written/said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slip gauges [block gauges would have been an acceptable alternative].
Slip gauges aka, block gauges, Johanssen's gauges, Jo-blocks and in the NE Jo-slips.
What the interviewee would have said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jo-slips. [the use of the term makes him from the NE in all probablity]
In the NE when some one says "Jo" you hear something like "Jew".
So the interpreter hears: "The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jew-slips"....off it goes!
Then you need something like an 80 year old Geordie machine tool fitter to unravel it for you.
Googlish version of what the interpreter thought he heard.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jewish guides.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slips of Jews.
Standardisation of length is achieved with the use of jew bottle.
I get your general point, and I guess we're coming at this from different angles, but are there any major bones of contention re the UK rogs?
Only one comes to my mind for the moment and that's in Jane's rog re Murat (the phrase in question is in bold). For me, it's an issue with the chatty style of the interview as they sometimes interrupt each other. and where I find the transcription could have benefited from, e.g, "..." to indicate that a phrase was interrupted (if ever that's the case in this instance).
And, yet again, I find context important. Just reading the preceding sentences, and the bold bit, it could sound as if she was convinced that it was Murat that she'd seen that night. Some people may genuinely interpret it that way; others have a habit of taking comments out of context for their own reasons.
IMO, when I took into account the style of the interview, the numerous mutual interruptions, the fact that she'd already stated that she didn't think it was Murat, etc., my conclusion is that it's unlikely that "I just thought it was" refers to the idea that she thought it
was Murat, but rather an explanation as to why she contacted Bob Small (because some of the others were convinced that he was the person they'd seen that night).
Is it crucial? No. Unless, of course, Murat had faced a C-case-type trial (the one I'm not supposed to mention on here) and everything was taken literally and the last bit of juice squeezed out of anything that could sound negative.
Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “Because I took it seriously”.
4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
Reply “No”.
4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078 “Truth to what happened that night”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.
Reply “No, it was”.
4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”?
Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.
4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”?
Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
