Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[G-Unit]

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.

I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.

[Robittybob1]

I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.

We get small clues as to what was discussed.  We could list them and see if there is a pattern.

[Carana]

I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.

And they added "and any other relevant questions" to the end quite often. So that leaves it pretty open. If they'd just asked the PJ questions, there may well have been very short answers, if they could remember at all. At least it was an opportunity to take them back in time, get clarification and any other details of potential interest.

[Mr Gray]

I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.

But of course in the UK the PJ had no power... No difference  from civilians, is the term often used

[Alice Purjorick]

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

Oh I think they rapidly became outside the comfort zone!

[Robittybob1]

Oh I think they rapidly became outside the comfort zone!

Could you quote a paragraph from a rogatory which confirms that to you?

[G-Unit]

But of course in the UK the PJ had no power... No difference  from civilians, is the term often used

Once a request for mutual legal assistance has been agreed by the Home Office then that assistance should be provided by those given the job. The job was to ask certain people certain questions and record their answers. It wasn't to have pre-interview discussions with the witnesses. I can imagine the fuss if it was discovered that the PJ had off the record discussions with the people OG wanted interviewed in Portugal. In my opinion that would have been seen as highly suspicious and irregular.

[Carana]

Once a request for mutual legal assistance has been agreed by the Home Office then that assistance should be provided by those given the job. The job was to ask certain people certain questions and record their answers. It wasn't to have pre-interview discussions with the witnesses. I can imagine the fuss if it was discovered that the PJ had off the record discussions with the people OG wanted interviewed in Portugal. In my opinion that would have been seen as highly suspicious and irregular.

I'm not quite sure how that fits into the topic thread of translation errors...

Are you saying that LP shouldn't have used the UK police's years of experience in eliciting information in the least stressful manner possible while the opportunity was there? And that they shouldn't have used the invitation offered by the PJ to feel free to ask any other questions that they deemed potentially useful?

The "off-record" (informal) chats could have been over a cup of tea, introducing themselves, getting their full contact details, putting them at ease and whatever else.

Many may have been pissed off at the PJ "leaks", general handling and may have wanted to blow off a bit of steam prior to the official recordings. In the general interest of diplomacy and avoiding OT rants in the official recordings, there may have been a good reason to let them let off a bit of steam beforehand, IMO.

And it's not clear from the rogs whether the PJ officers were also able to listen in to the "off-record" chats in any case - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't.

[Benice]

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*

It's perfectly normal for people not only to umm and arrh during conversations, but also to talk over and be talked over by other people and not finish sentences.   Anyone sitting in and observing would not notice anything strange at all IMO.   It's only because we are not used to reading 'verbatim statements' that different impressions to those obtained by hearing convos occur - as stuff we wouldn't normally notice now stands out like a sore thumb because it's in writing.   IMO

If we were used to reading verbatim accounts of interviews between all manner of intelligent articulate people on TV for instance - no-one would be questioning the verbatim rog. statements in this way imo.

AIMHO

[Alice Purjorick]

Could you quote a paragraph from a rogatory which confirms that to you?

No.
I think = my opinion.
In the rogatory interviews c.f Jane Tanner's rogatory interview with her two previous interviews with PJ.
Spaced out at 1 day 7days and 343(+/-) days. It does not confirm but sets bells off in mi 'ead.

[Mr Gray]

Once a request for mutual legal assistance has been agreed by the Home Office then that assistance should be provided by those given the job. The job was to ask certain people certain questions and record their answers. It wasn't to have pre-interview discussions with the witnesses. I can imagine the fuss if it was discovered that the PJ had off the record discussions with the people OG wanted interviewed in Portugal. In my opinion that would have been seen as highly suspicious and irregular.

The UK police have the power to act as they see fit in the uk... If that involves a pre interview chat that's up to them

[G-Unit]

The UK police have the power to act as they see fit in the uk... If that involves a pre interview chat that's up to them

How the police conduct themselves is up to them, but if they are less than transparent then it's acceptable to wonder why in my opinion.

[Carana]

How the police conduct themselves is up to them, but if they are less than transparent then it's acceptable to wonder why in my opinion.

Transparent to whom? To the general public? Is there anything credible to suggest that there may or may not have been informal discussions between the police forces as to how best handle this?

[Admin]

A reminder to all posters that appropriate language should be used when commenting.  Far too many posts still require moderator intervention so please consider carefully what you post.  It is always useful to deploy the preview option before making your comments public.

I do not want to stifle debate but if individual members continue to flaunt our rules I will intercede.

Duty Admin

[Carana]

No.
I think = my opinion.
In the rogatory interviews c.f Jane Tanner's rogatory interview with her two previous interviews with PJ.
Spaced out at 1 day 7days and 343(+/-) days. It does not confirm but sets bells off in mi 'ead.

Why? It doesn't for me.

Before her rog, I wasn't aware of this undercover surveillance operation, nor her version of the circumstances surrounding it.

Prior to reading her rog, I'd also thought that she'd kept changing her mind - as that was how the pro-PJ media (largely copied by the UK tabloids) was presenting her.

Once I did read her account in her rog, I found that I had a clearer idea (at least from her version of events).

Until then, I couldn't work out what problem with "eggman" was about.

The only allusion to that covert surveillance operation that I can find in the PJ statements is this:


Questioned, she reaffirms that she doesn't have any suspicion to put forward - other than the individual referred to as carrying a child in his arms - she doesn't recall any detail or situation that might be related to the disappearance of small MBM.

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

Personally, I find that the rogs offered an opportunity to clarify all sorts of things (even if only from their perspective).

If anyone had deliberately lied, the PJ might have had new leads to go on. I really don't see why the UK approach was in any way inappropriate. On the contrary.