Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Cutting to the chase we have a date for JT's last statement to the PJ as 10th May 2007 and the rogatory interview of 8th April 2008. In the first she saw little she could remember and hang her hat on. On the second she averred the first remained her view. In between there were 340 plus days of hoohah relating to Mr Murat, increasing detail of what "the abductor" looked like [from whom ? as JT was the only one who saw him allowing there was nothing she could add to her original statement].
Something don't hang together there so ding dong. . I am not singling anyone out, playing the blame game is a sure fire way to failure to identify a problem and solve it ...

[Miss Taken Identity]

In which case, if you haven't seen this Portuguese version  you cannot possibly know if it contains any errors.

What isn't known gets invented- to make things fit.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Yes that could be the case  -  but there still should have been a row of dots after the 'and' to indicate that.  It's only because we know that sentences never end with an 'and' that we can safely assume it was an unfinished sentence.

Yes three dots to be precise. However, the question is why did Jane stop herself mid sentence...

[Carana]

Cutting to the chase we have a date for JT's last statement to the PJ as 10th May 2007 and the rogatory interview of 8th April 2008. In the first she saw little she could remember and hang her hat on. On the second she averred the first remained her view. In between there were 340 plus days of hoohah relating to Mr Murat, increasing detail of what "the abductor" looked like [from whom ? as JT was the only one who saw him allowing there was nothing she could add to her original statement].
Something don't hang together there so ding dong. . I am not singling anyone out, playing the blame game is a sure fire way to failure to identify a problem and solve it ...

I'm not sure what details you're thinking of.

[Carana]

There's a difference between translating and interpreting, and it's not just the fact that one is written and the other is verbal.

If you're translating a written text, you've got dictionaries that you can consult and a certain amount of time to think of the best way of conveying the meaning. If you're interpreting, it's live. Presumably the "interpreters" could ask if they didn't understand, but there may have been times when they thought they had understood. And there's no way now of knowing as there is no available recording of what was actually said by any of them in the PJ statements.

Another point is that even if the first lady was actually a translator, it would be useful to know what kind of translating she'd done. If it was e.g., general correspondence or even business English, the language is likely to have been more formal (i.e., with fewer colloquial expressions).

A further point is that you don't have regional accents to try to decipher when translating.

[Miss Taken Identity]

There's a difference between translating and interpreting, and it's not just the fact that one is written and the other is verbal.

If you're translating a written text, you've got dictionaries that you can consult and a certain amount of time to think of the best way of conveying the meaning. If you're interpreting, it's live. Presumably the "interpreters" could ask if they didn't understand, but there may have been times when they thought they had understood. And there's no way now of knowing as there is no available recording of what was actually said by any of them in the PJ statements.

Another point is that even if the first lady was actually a translator, it would be useful to know what kind of translating she'd done. If it was e.g., general correspondence or even business English, the language is likely to have been more formal (i.e., with fewer colloquial expressions).

A further point is that you don't have regional accents to try to decipher when translating.

WHICH very important parts of the interviews with the PJ which they allegedly blatantly added lies to make the McCanns look guilty of leaving their children alone, and trying to cover up their appalling child care provision.

[Carana]

WHICH very important parts of the interviews with the PJ which  they blatantly added lies to make the McCanns look guilty of leaving their children alone and trying to cover up their appalling child care provision.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about.

[Carana]

It was badly edited!

 

Where would they have made that clear?

Kate did mention some confusion in her book (including when giving informal statements to whoever who'd come over from the UK)- I don't have the book to hand, so I can't check on that.

Of course, Kate could have invented that and those early days could have actually been a well-oiled machine with no room for misunderstandings at any time. 

From my perspective, it's not a case of supporting them or not. I'm just trying to be realistic - and the idea of a well-oiled machine, taking into account the fact that the PJ had little experience of such a case, the stress of the media attention, the probably lack of resources, the language barrier, the urgency of trying to gather information ASAP to try to find a missing child... just doesn't seem realistic to me.

There was a topic ages ago on potential translation issues, but there's now a new one and it's quite a busy thread. Is that a problem?

[jassi]

Where would they have made that clear?

Kate did mention some confusion in her book (including when giving informal statements to whoever who'd come over from the UK)- I don't have the book to hand, so I can't check on that.

Of course, Kate could have invented that and those early days could have actually been a well-oiled machine with no room for misunderstandings at any time. 

From my perspective, it's not a case of supporting them or not. I'm just trying to be realistic - and the idea of a well-oiled machine, taking into account the fact that the PJ had little experience of such a case, the stress of the media attention, the probably lack of resources, the language barrier, the urgency of trying to gather information ASAP to try to find a missing child... just doesn't seem realistic to me.

There was a topic ages ago on potential translation issues, but there's now a new one and it's quite a busy thread. Is that a problem?

That is not the impression you give - more a case of inventing an excuse to explain every little thing - IMO

[slartibartfast]

That is not the impression you give - more a case of inventing an excuse to explain every little thing - IMO

IMO, that is an impression you get from most supporters and is probably because of the lack of evidence to explain the anomalies.

[Robittybob1]

IMO, that is an impression you get from most supporters and is probably because of the lack of evidence to explain the anomalies.

But if there are situations that could explain the events and if there is no evidence against it, you need to consider if it was possible.

[jassi]

The moral of that  surely being, if you don't know the answer, don't invent one.

[Carana]

That is not the impression you give - more a case of inventing an excuse to explain every little thing - IMO

If there are things that I find odd, I have no problem saying so.

As I've said before, for a long time I was on the fence until I waded through a long list of questions and tried to check. I did have a slight leaning towards thinking that they weren't involved, but then a new bit of "news" would turn up which would make me wonder again.

Now, years down the line, no, I don't think they are. Not because I know them or have had any contact with them, but simply because I haven't found anything of substance that would still make me suspicious.

I have followed other cases, and I've sometimes had trouble trying to stay objective in the other direction. Whatever suspicions I had, I still tried to fact check as far as possible.

[jassi]

But if there are situations that could explain the events and if there is no evidence against it, you need to consider if it was possible.

Proper investigators don't work on the premise of invented scenarios. If they did, they'd never get anywhere.

[Carana]

The moral of that  surely being, if you don't know the answer, don't invent one.

It's not a case of inventing anything for me. IMO, it's a case of considering what the options are. If any can be excluded, then they can get ticked off. If not, then there's still a question mark, so that goes on the back burner. If some things appear beyond reasonable doubt, then they go on the front burner.