Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Robittybob1]

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.

I was more interested in seeing how you think, why you think etc if I think = IMO.  If you say "Oh I think they rapidly became outside the comfort zone!"  I would have liked to know why you think that.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

I think we are wandering off topic a bit. None the less in respose:

On the 8th April 2008, according to her letters rogatory statement Ms Tanner was satisfied that the man she saw was not Robert Murat.
On the 4th and 10th May 2007 when interviewed by the PJ she says she didn't really see much except the man in profile apparently not wearing spectacles but dressed like a local would be for the weather at the time of year. She didn’t really pay the sighting much “no never mind” until she discovered MBM was missing then thought she could have witnessed an abduction being carried out by a bloke with a blank face no spectacles [yes I have heard of contact lenses but some of us choose not to use them] whom she will recognise only by his profile and GISS.
In between time, between 4th May 2007 and 10th May 2007 we have Lori  Campbell phoning LP reporting Mr Murat of what in her opinion was suspicious behaviour then 10th May 2007 and  8th April 2008 we have the surveillance incident and Melissa Little’s sketches.
The rogatory interview makes reference to surveillance of Murat but not by/at the instigation of whom.
Given that Ms Tanner was convinced the man she saw was not Mr Murat what was all that haraz about other than Mr Murat being an easy target for the baser press with readers who have even baser instincts?
Who if anyone was pulling the chain?
Or is all another set of random events?

[Carana]

I think we are wandering off topic a bit. None the less in respose:

On the 8th April 2008, according to her letters rogatory statement Ms Tanner was satisfied that the man she saw was not Robert Murat.
On the 4th and 10th May 2007 when interviewed by the PJ she says she didn't really see much except the man in profile apparently not wearing spectacles but dressed like a local would be for the weather at the time of year. She didn’t really pay the sighting much “no never mind” until she discovered MBM was missing then thought she could have witnessed an abduction being carried out by a bloke with a blank face no spectacles [yes I have heard of contact lenses but some of us choose not to use them] whom she will recognise only by his profile and GISS.
In between time, between 4th May 2007 and 10th May 2007 we have Lori  Campbell phoning LP reporting Mr Murat of what in her opinion was suspicious behaviour then 10th May 2007 and  8th April 2008 we have the surveillance incident and Melissa Little’s sketches.
The rogatory interview makes reference to surveillance of Murat but not by/at the instigation of whom.
Given that Ms Tanner was convinced the man she saw was not Mr Murat what was all that haraz about other than Mr Murat being an easy target for the baser press with readers who have even baser instincts?
Who if anyone was pulling the chain?
Or is all another set of random events?

Yes, I agree, but I'm still not sure what "sends bells ringing"? Re Jane, or the media, or both?

Murat was very much present as of 4 May offering his help. Lori may have had the Soham murders in mind at the time. Jane had stated that she'd seen a man that night... and that led to the whole chain of events.

I don't see it as any more complicated than that.

[Carana]

To get more or less back on topic.

What errors were there?

Were they translation errors?

Were some due to interpreting? If so, how could that be verified?

Were some due to lost-in-confusion / cultural differences?

And are they critical? If so, in what way and to whom? Individually, or cumulatively?

[slartibartfast]

To get more or less back on topic.

What errors were there?

Were they translation errors?

Were some due to interpreting? If so, how could that be verified?

Were some due to lost-in-confusion / cultural differences?

And are they critical? If so, in what way and to whom? Individually, or cumulatively?

As a flow chart, the first question is the important one. If the answer is none, the other questions are meaningless.

[Carana]

As a flow chart, the first question is the important one. If the answer is none, the other questions are meaningless.

That's the way it seems to me, the following ones are a sub-set, until the final one.

But errors (or potential ones) where? In the PJ statements? In the rogs? In the media?

[slartibartfast]

That's the way it seems to me, the following ones are a sub-set, until the final one.

But errors (or potential ones) where? In the PJ statements? In the rogs? In the media?

There is no evidence of any errors.

[Brietta]

To get more or less back on topic.

What errors were there?

Were they translation errors?

Were some due to interpreting? If so, how could that be verified?

Were some due to lost-in-confusion / cultural differences?

And are they critical? If so, in what way and to whom? Individually, or cumulatively?

Occasionally the translators of the Levy files made notations to detail why they had made certain assumptions in the original texts from which they were working to enable a smoother transition from Portuguese to English.

[NOTE: The next line is:
"Descreverias como tendo um cinto no interior como mecanismo para abrir e fechar."
Direct translation: You [singular] would describe [something???] as having a belt inside as a mechanism to open and close.
I think that the single word "Descreverias" should be two words "Descreveria as" meaning "I would describe them", giving the translation as:]

I would describe them [the blinds] as having a belt inside as a mechanism to open and close [them].
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

Perhaps this might have been carried out on other occasions at the translators discretion and was sometimes right and sometimes wrong but not always recorded as having been done?

[G-Unit]

In my opinion claims that interpreters or translators made errors aren't supportable by evidence. If they were the evidence would be presented. Inconsistencies and anomalies which don't rely on interpretation or translation can be demonstrated however. The group produced a written account of the events of 3rd May and gave it to the PJ on 10th May. They all, including Gerry, saw, read and agreed with what it said. It is in the files in the original English;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

Gerry subsequently stated that he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road.

[Robittybob1]

In my opinion claims that interpreters or translators made errors aren't supportable by evidence. If they were the evidence would be presented. Inconsistencies and anomalies which don't rely on interpretation or translation can be demonstrated however. The group produced a written account of the events of 3rd May and gave it to the PJ on 10th May. They all, including Gerry, saw, read and agreed with what it said. It is in the files in the original English;

2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm

Gerry subsequently stated that he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road.

" standing just up the hill from the gate" and "he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road" are not contradictory but both add to where they were standing.

[Robittybob1]

I wasn't looking for errors but I think I have discovered one.  What does Gerry mean here?  "Asked, he relates that the daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday."
How many kids were ill on Tuesday?  Is it daughter or daughters?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

[slartibartfast]

I wasn't looking for errors but I think I have discovered one.  What does Gerry mean here?  "Asked, he relates that the daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday."
How many kids were ill on Tuesday?  Is it daughter or daughters?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

So you are saying the daughter wasn’t ill?

[Robittybob1]

So you are saying the daughter wasn’t ill?

Russell was married to Jane and David was married to Fiona so there should theoretically be no "daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA".
It just doesn't seem right.  I'm too tired to confirm what it could mean so I have just raised it and I'll check it tomorrow.

[Carana]

There is no evidence of any errors.

It's fairly easy to establish if you can compare two written versions, or compare an audio recording to an audio or written record in the target language.

There is, however, evidence of errors being mentioned, but with nothing to be able to independently check them. 

Jane's rog:

Reply    “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet.  But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.  And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas.  And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm


4 May statement:

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.

10 May

About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.

Subsequently, she had no doubts that it could have been MBM because, through conversations with FP in which [FP] described the pyjamas that MBM had worn that night, which coincided with those she had seen.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

---

Cat Baker:
Between 11h57 and 12h12 of the same day I was again interviewed on DVD by DC GIERC. During this interview I was permitted to refresh my memory after reading my translated original statement made to the Portuguese police. There are two facts that I would like to clarify: "dining out service" which is mentioned is available for the adults, being that the children would be left under the care of a childcare worker during dinner. My original deposition also mentioned that Madeleine offered more attention to the boys in the club. I do not remember having made such an affirmation given that Madeleine passed the majority of time playing with Jane Tanner's daughter. I confirm that the deposition in this second DVD is truthful and in accord with my knowledge and that it will be registered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm

I couldn't find what she was referring to in the English of that...

Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA.htm

I found it in the PT one though.

Lines 52-53

No que concerne �  menina em concreto, adianta que era uma criança bastante activa e sociável, dando contudo a sua maior atenção aos meninos do grupo a que pertencia.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_255.jpg

Possibly someone else could with a PT-speaker, but AFAIK "meninos" could well be one of those words, as in other languages that in the plural can mean either boys or a mixture of boys and girls (the masculine form taking precedence). If that's the case, the most logical reason for her comment is that whoever translated the PT into English for her to read didn't know whether it meant boys or simply children and opted for boys.

[Eleanor]

The Collective in French is Masculine, regardless of gender.