Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Carana]

Yep!
Within a gnats doodah they are 12 months after the event.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/

Yes, false memory is always a possibility, except that there quite a few instances where Jane says she's trying to separate her memory of what she'd seen from what she later found out. If anything, IMO, false recall / suggestibility could be a factor for those who were convinced that Murat was around that night. Ironically, Jane wasn't one of them.

I've just moved links to an article / video to the new thread on false memory syndrome.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Jane on the whole seems in quite an emotional state.  There are multiple unfinished sentences and ideas.

Yes why would someone add on their ideas? did anyone ask for them? she seems to be trying to make a story fit as she feels she isn't confident in her conversations!  And be unable to complete a sentence? I suspect trying not to say something she didn't want say by accident.

There is no other explanation because IF she did see someone at the top of the road carrying a child then there is nothing to fear from saying just that. However, trying to persuade people this person was abducting a friends child is quite a different story indeed!

[Carana]

Yes why would someone add on their ideas? did anyone ask for them? she seems to be trying to make a story fit as she feels she isn't confident in her conversations!  And be unable to complete a sentence? I suspect trying not to say something she didn't want say by accident.

There is no other explanation because IF she did see someone at the top of the road carrying a child then there is nothing to fear from saying just that. However, trying to persuade people this person was abducting a friends child is quite a different story indeed!

Who said she was afraid?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Who said she was afraid?

Well since we are trying to get Jane and her abductor idea off the hook here, I felt I should add to the mix that she had absolutely no reason to be incoherent and ranting,not completing sentences,offering ideas, when asked simple questions, I suggest she was trying to answer one way when thinking a completely different way. Do try that exercise... It isn't easy.

We are constantly reminded on this very forum, that these are articulate ,intelligent people...

Yeah but no but yeah but no but..
*sN.....s*

[Carana]

Well since we are trying to get Jane and her abductor idea off the hook here, I felt I should add to the mix that she had absolutely no reason to be incoherent and ranting,not completing sentences,offering ideas, when asked simple questions, I suggest she was trying to answer one way when thinking a completely different way. Do try that exercise... It isn't easy.

We are constantly reminded on this very forum, that these are articulate ,intelligent people...

Yeah but no but yeah but no but..
*sN.....s*

My view is different - it just sounds like a somewhat chatty interview (as opposed to a prepared speech). Reducing stress is one of the factors that UK police now use (whether the interviewee is a victim, a witness or a potential suspect).

Same #6 post from here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9018.0

[jassi]

I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.

[Carana]

I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.

I didn't get that impression about Jane. Emotional yes, but I don't see anything odd about that in the circumstances.

[G-Unit]

Jane's story regarding Wednesday 2nd differs considerably from everyone else's. She had no recollection of it raining and thought she had her tennis lesson as usual, followed by Madeleine and Ella's tennis lesson. She says Russell went to dinner at 20.35, but Jes Wilkins said he arrived with Gerry 20 minutes before that. I don't think we can blame the interpreter for those anomalies.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

She tells the same story in her rog. too;

Actually that morning was the morning Ella and Madeleine had the tennis lesson I think on the Wednesday. You’ve got the picture of…”

4078    “Yeah.”
Reply    “Err so after the, would it be the Wednesday, after our tennis lesson they all came down so we did stay and watch them for a bit,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

[Robittybob1]

I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.

Have you noticed there are times the police interviewer refers to a prior off the record discussion that Jane had?  I think there was a lot of effort to make Jane feel comfortable.

[Robittybob1]

Yes why would someone add on their ideas? did anyone ask for them? she seems to be trying to make a story fit as she feels she isn't confident in her conversations!  And be unable to complete a sentence? I suspect trying not to say something she didn't want say by accident.

There is no other explanation because IF she did see someone at the top of the road carrying a child then there is nothing to fear from saying just that. However, trying to persuade people this person was abducting a friends child is quite a different story indeed!

Jane to me is being very honest even going slightly against the McCann point of view.  She never tries to make out it was Madeleine, or that Madeleine was abducted via the open window.  She explains how the post event information has altered her memory.  Even to be aware that your memory has been altered is rather unique. 
She didn't just ID Robert Murat even though it would have been easy to say Yes it was him.  It is the others who use her observation and make the abduction story out of it, the telling of that was affecting her memory of a possible innocent observation.

[Carana]

Jane to me is being very honest even going slightly against the McCann point of view.  She never tries to make out it was Madeleine, or that Madeleine was abducted via the open window.  She explains how the post event information has altered her memory.  Even to be aware that your memory has been altered is rather unique. 
She didn't just ID Robert Murat even though it would have been easy to say Yes it was him.  It is the others who use her observation and make the abduction story out of it, the telling of that was affecting her memory of a possible innocent observation.

I agree that it does sound as if she was aware of the danger of false memories. Perhaps whoever gave her the cognitive interview explained the purpose of it.

[G-Unit]

Have you noticed there are times the police interviewer refers to a prior off the record discussion that Jane had?  I think there was a lot of effort to make Jane feel comfortable.

The question arising is why LP should go to such lengths. All they were required to do was ask the witnesses the questions the PJ sent through.

[Robittybob1]

The question arising is why LP should go to such lengths. All they were required to do was ask the witnesses the questions the PJ sent through.

Did Jane have to answer questions?  Did she have to speak?  Maybe it was obvious to LP that Jane was not going to cooperate without some sort of assurance.

[Eleanor]

The Rogatory Statements were voluntary.

[Carana]

The question arising is why LP should go to such lengths. All they were required to do was ask the witnesses the questions the PJ sent through.

Quite a few of the rog requests include a statement to the effect of "and any other questions deemed relevant".

I don't see any harm in running through everything they could while they had the opportunity, trying to clarify anything that might have got garbled, seeing if there was any extra information, and what not.