UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on September 02, 2016, 06:45:38 AM
-
The Portuguese refer to them as statements. The witnesses referred to them as statements and signed them. Therefore they are statements. The opinions of people on forums are irrelevant.
Kate was not interviewed a week after the disappearance because, she said, Gerry got her out of it as he was worried about her 'mental state'. I don't know why the Payne's weren't interviewed at that time.
391
-
The Portuguese refer to them as statements. The witnesses referred to them as statements and signed them. Therefore they are statements. The opinions of people on forums are irrelevant.
Kate was not interviewed a week after the disappearance because, she said, Gerry got her out of it as he was worried about her 'mental state'. I don't know why the Payne's weren't interviewed at that time.
they may well be statements but what value are statements that are non verbatim and translated...very little in my opinion...
-
they may well be statements but what value are statements that are non verbatim and translated...very little in my opinion...
Let's see. The Portuguese are to be criticised for wanting statements recorded in Portuguese. For an incident that occurred in Portugal.
Hmmmn. Not feeling it.
-
Let's see. The Portuguese are to be criticised for wanting statements recorded in Portuguese. For an incident that occurred in Portugal.
Hmmmn. Not feeling it.
I think you (slightly) miss the point. The critic(ism) of statements taken the way they were (irrespective of the country or the circumstances) is that potential for true meaning (intended in statements given by individual witnesses) to be lost is huge.
-
I think you (slightly) miss the point. The critic(ism) of statements taken the way they were (irrespective of the country or the circumstances) is that potential for true meaning (intended in statements given by individual witnesses) to be lost is huge.
That's great for defence lawyers. "Even though my client said xyz, he didn't mean that, he meant abc."
-
I think you (slightly) miss the point. The critic(ism) of statements taken the way they were (irrespective of the country or the circumstances) is that potential for true meaning (intended in statements given by individual witnesses) to be lost is huge.
I agree.
The language barrier was a huge obstacle IMO. For instance - if Madeleine had disappeared in this country - would our police have needed to ask Kate what... 'We let her down'.... meant? Would they have spent months thinking it was an expression used by UK doctors when a patient died - and was so important to the case that it was one of the 48 questions? I very much doubt it.
There will be words or phrases in both languages for which there is no precise equivalent translation. The translators themselves mention (by way of notes) some of the difficulties which they encountered. That fact added to the cultural differences - made it a situation rife for misunderstandings and wrong conclusions to be the outcome.
IMO the language barrier and those cultural differences considerably contributed to the PJ's original suspicions about the McCanns and their friends. 'Suspicions' which would not have arisen if the crime had taken place in the UK and had been investigated by UK police.
It's pity that interviews with witnesses in PT were not recorded. I'm surprised that they weren't - particularly because of the language barrier.
AIMHO
-
I think you (slightly) miss the point. The critic(ism) of statements taken the way they were (irrespective of the country or the circumstances) is that potential for true meaning (intended in statements given by individual witnesses) to be lost is huge.
However, subsequentliy, the parents went on a world wide tour for funds search for their daughter, gave interviews and a UK televised reconstruction of their version of acounts, on that basis Amaral still came to the same conclusion so there was no error in translation as far as Amarals' thesis is concerned. There is also the other evidence which he never got hold of, and further recent, relevent revelations about residents in PDL and he never got to check out Tannerman or Smithman in relation to this case.
PS; I have never read Amaral book, and I don't agree with his Thesis as per snippet of information available, I support his right to print it. Just as some people support the McCanns rights as parents to leave small babies alone in an apartment- while they go for a drink and meal.
-
I think you (slightly) miss the point. The critic(ism) of statements taken the way they were (irrespective of the country or the circumstances) is that potential for true meaning (intended in statements given by individual witnesses) to be lost is huge.
Sorry, I've read the T7 rogatory statements and they define dire.
Anyone who thinks statements given in Portugal should be other than in Portuguese should seriously consider stopping the waste of your time, and our time, and get on with something constructive.
Anyone who thinks statements given in Portugal should have been recorded in a manner not required by Portuguese law, give it a rest.
The 'twice-translated, non-verbatim' argument doesn't wash. It never did.
To anyone using it, it would appear you are restricted to those parts of the PJ Files recorded verbatim in English, or perhaps including the non-verbatim reports originally written in English. Basically, not a lot, so hardly worth your time - you won't get much out of that.
Either get used to statements constructed to Portuguese standards, or get a life.
-
Sorry, I've read the T7 rogatory statements and they define dire.
Anyone who thinks statements given in Portugal should be other than in Portuguese should seriously consider stopping the waste of your time, and our time, and get on with something constructive.
Anyone who thinks statements given in Portugal should have been recorded in a manner not required by Portuguese law, give it a rest.
The 'twice-translated, non-verbatim' argument doesn't wash. It never did.
To anyone using it, it would appear you are restricted to those parts of the PJ Files recorded verbatim in English, or perhaps including the non-verbatim reports originally written in English. Basically, not a lot, so hardly worth your time - you won't get much out of that.
Either get used to statements constructed to Portuguese standards, or get a life.
The point of discussion is the potential for loss (of originally intended meaning) in statements taken in one language, translated into another, then re-translated.
That you don't understand the point is (largely) neither here nor there.
-
The point of discussion is the potential for loss (of originally intended meaning) in statements taken in one language, translated into another, then translated.
That you don't understand the point is (largely) neither here nor there.
I just don't get what part of these statements are dodgy, and what significant difference it would make to finding Maddie. The main points are surely:
1. Maddie Disappeared without a trace.
2. her parents failed to prevent this due to their priority for drinking and dining without the children
3. as the last known people to see her alive, they were questioned, mother refused to answer 48 questions.
4. a time line was established within the group and presented to the police- which gave them an alibi and gave credence to an abductor being involved with Maddies disappearance.
The parents had those statements translated themselves, they could have brought up any irregularities at court to throw at Amaral- this didn't happen. They could have published their account and challenged the interpreters, this didn't happen...So, anyway, what parts of the statements are we not to believe according to you and other supporters, who were not there.
-
The point of discussion is the potential for loss (of originally intended meaning) in statements taken in one language, translated into another, then re-translated.
That you don't understand the point is (largely) neither here nor there.
I understand the point perfectly.
On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here). This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.
I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted. I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.
And the idea works well.
I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal. If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.
The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.
-
I understand the point perfectly.
On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here). This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.
I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted. I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.
And the idea works well.
I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal. If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.
The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.
Obviously, diffierent laws and procedures differ from country to country. I'm not sure that that's the issue being discussed. A problem is that when there are language and other barriers in police interviews in any country, it would make sense to have a recording of them so that any potential misunderstandings can be traced more easily - particularly when the police need to call on anyone more or less conversant with the other language who is available at short notice.
A recommendation was introduced in PT in 2013 for at least the first arguido interview to be audio-recorded. Not sure whether that's ended up in the vertical filing cabinet or not.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2969.msg128967#msg128967
Personally, I feel that all police interviews should be recorded, for the protection of both the police and interviewees / suspects in the event that charges are laid.
-
I understand the point perfectly.
On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here). This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.
I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted. I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.
And the idea works well.
I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal. If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.
The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.
I disagree.
However in the context of the thread it is an irrelevance as it is applicable only to the internet tittle tattle of the intervening years and has little to do with Amaral's interpretation of the events which occurred on his watch.
The huge gulf in understanding is exemplified when the use of the idiomatic phrase "We let her down" is totally misunderstood with an obvious lack of endeavour to determine what Kate was actually saying.
Any native English speaker could have explained the exact meaning ... then perhaps he didn't know any who weren't in on the supposed conspiracy in which he beleived.
The misinterpretation of the evidence and the importance of just that one little phrase to the suspicions harboured by the PJ is confirmed at the arguido stage when Kate McCann was asked ~ question 17 What did the expression "we let her down" mean? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
Later the transcript of the documentary of the book affirms ...
11.33 – When she arrived there, she cried out “We let her down”, which is a medical term that is often used in medicine, “she’s gone”, and then everyone came running and everyone used the entrance on this side of the apartment again.
That in my opinion is indicative of a particular mindset which stubbornly persists in adopting the wrong information without bothering to check it out in pursuit of a goal ... which in this instance was not an intention to advance Madeleine's case but was focused on her parents supposed guilt.
-
I understand the point perfectly.
On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here). This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.
I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted. I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.
And the idea works well.
I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal. If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.
The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.
If you regard loss of possible information, context and (intended) meaning as 'plain daft', then I guess you do.
You are wrong (to regard it such).
-
I disagree.
However in the context of the thread it is an irrelevance as it is applicable only to the internet tittle tattle of the intervening years and has little to do with Amaral's interpretation of the events which occurred on his watch.
The huge gulf in understanding is exemplified when the use of the idiomatic phrase "We let her down" is totally misunderstood with an obvious lack of endeavour to determine what Kate was actually saying.
Any native English speaker could have explained the exact meaning ... then perhaps he didn't know any who weren't in on the supposed conspiracy in which he beleived.
The misinterpretation of the evidence and the importance of just that one little phrase to the suspicions harboured by the PJ is confirmed at the arguido stage when Kate McCann was asked ~ question 17 What did the expression "we let her down" mean? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
Later the transcript of the documentary of the book affirms ...
11.33 – When she arrived there, she cried out “We let her down”, which is a medical term that is often used in medicine, “she’s gone”, and then everyone came running and everyone used the entrance on this side of the apartment again.
That in my opinion is indicative of a particular mindset which stubbornly persists in adopting the wrong information without bothering to check it out in pursuit of a goal ... which in this instance was not an intention to advance Madeleine's case but was focused on her parents supposed guilt.
Good example.
-
If you regard loss of possible information, context and (intended) meaning as 'plain daft', then I guess you do.
You are wrong (to regard it such).
If you consider David Payne's rogatory to be superior to his 4 May statement then you're making me wince. The former is longer than the latter, but it is much more open to interpretation and mis-interpretation. I shudder to think what the translator made of it when producing a Portuguese version, and I shudder to think what the PJ made of that translation. Nightmare!
-
Let's see. The Portuguese are to be criticised for wanting statements recorded in Portuguese. For an incident that occurred in Portugal.
Hmmmn. Not feeling it.
your opinion is ridiculous ...imo
The way the statements have been recorded is pathetic. The fact that there is no record of what the mccanns actually said...only the intepretation and translation of which we have no way of judging the accuracy of is ridiculous yet misguided posters on here want to some way think they are accurate
-
I understand the point perfectly.
On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here). This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.
I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted. I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.
And the idea works well.
I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal. If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.
The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.
that is simply your opinion and shows a complete lack of understanding of what is and isnt of any evidential value
-
It's bizarre that some people feel they need to defend Portugal no matter what. Portugal apologists I guess we could call them.
-
your opinion is ridiculous ...imo
The way the statements have been recorded is pathetic. The fact that there is no record of what the mccanns actually said...only the intepretation and translation of which we have no way of judging the accuracy of is ridiculous yet misguided posters on here want to some way think they are accurate
The statements were recorded in a process in compliance with Portuguese law.
And you have said in the past that, in your opinion, your opinion is of no worth.
Requiring that the statements should have been recorded in a manner that suits your opinion is therefore somewhat amusing.
-
that is simply your opinion and shows a complete lack of understanding of what is and isnt of any evidential value
Show me an occasion when a recorded statement has been used in Portugal. Otherwise 'evidential value' is a non-starter as an argument.
-
So in Portugal it's best practise NOT to record witness statements. Figures....
-
It's bizarre that some people feel they need to defend Portugal no matter what. Portugal apologists I guess we could call them.
And just who are these 'some people'? I have yet to meet a single person in Portugal who comes close to 'defending Portugal no matter what'.
It's another silly idea along the lines of the PJ should not have done it the Portuguese way, but instead conducted the investigation as if everything and everyone was on UK soil, using UK procedures, to UK standards.
-
So in Portugal it's best practise NOT to record witness statements. Figures....
That's another daft proposition.
If you can show that the conduct of the investigation did not follow police procedures to an extent that would have prevented a prosecution, you've got a point. The trouble is, you can't.
The Alfie Manual of Portuguese Police Procedures had not been published when Madeleine disappeared.
-
The statements were recorded in a process in compliance with Portuguese law.
And you have said in the past that, in your opinion, your opinion is of no worth.
Requiring that the statements should have been recorded in a manner that suits your opinion is therefore somewhat amusing.
the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling
-
Show me an occasion when a recorded statement has been used in Portugal. Otherwise 'evidential value' is a non-starter as an argument.
some of us are interested in the evidence...that's what we base our opinions on. The statements have little value because they are twice translated and non verbatim
-
That's another daft proposition.
If you can show that the conduct of the investigation did not follow police procedures to an extent that would have prevented a prosecution, you've got a point. The trouble is, you can't.
The Alfie Manual of Portuguese Police Procedures had not been published when Madeleine disappeared.
I'm just pointing out that it is not police procedure to record police interviews in Portugal, and why should they? Everyone who works for the PT police is 100% accurate at all times and in every aspect.
-
the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling
Made a pig's ear of it? That's a serious allegation unsupported by any evidence.
So how about some supporting evidence of this pig's ear? That would mean multiple serious instances of errors of commission and/or multiple serious instances of errors of omission.
I can remember one instance of a minor error in a statement.
Let´s see you prove your 'pig's ear' allegation.
-
some of us are interested in the evidence...that's what we base our opinions on. The statements have little value because they are twice translated and non verbatim
Then stop following the case if you are discarding the bulk of the statements.
That reduces you to the rogs in English, the forensics, some police reports and the dog videos. You are not going to get an informed opinion from that lot.
-
I'm just pointing out that it is not police procedure to record police interviews in Portugal, and why should they? Everyone who works for the PT police is 100% accurate at all times and in every aspect.
Why should they be 100% accurate? The PJ Files contain instances of the UK police getting it wrong. Crimewatch 2013 has instances of Andy Redwood getting it wrong. The rogs in English are sufficiently unclear to have led to more than debate on what was actually meant.
At some point the silly tests you propose will cease and be replaced by some realism. Or maybe not.
-
Why should they be 100% accurate? The PJ Files contain instances of the UK police getting it wrong. Crimewatch 2013 has instances of Andy Redwood getting it wrong. The rogs in English are sufficiently unclear to have led to more than debate on what was actually meant.
At some point the silly tests you propose will cease and be replaced by some realism. Or maybe not.
LOL @ why should the police be 100% accurate! What percentage of accuracy do you think they should aspire to then? Do you think it's better not to record police interviews, and if so why do you think that?
As for silly tests, I've no idea what you're talking about.
-
LOL @ why should the police be 100% accurate! What percentage of accuracy do you think they should aspire to then? Do you think it's better not to record police interviews, and if so why do you think that?
As for silly tests, I've no idea what you're talking about.
What they should aspire to is not relevant, since it does not reflect the reality of PJ capability in 2007 nor the requirements of the legal system.
The reality is they did not record interviews and the legal system did not require this.
They did not use your much-vaunted HOLMES, irrespective of whether you think they should aspire to this.
They did not have a DNA database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to that or not.
They did not have a paedophile database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to have one or not.
They did not have PACE, irrespective of your views on aspirations.
And that is realism. Perhaps the McCanns should have gone to a seaside town in the UK instead, when they would have got UK policing and no need to interact with Johnny Foreigner.
Cite a case in Portugal in 2007 where interviews were recorded on DVD and you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are simply PJ-bashing.
-
Then stop following the case if you are discarding the bulk of the statements.
That reduces you to the rogs in English, the forensics, some police reports and the dog videos. You are not going to get an informed opinion from that lot.
There is a lot more to the case than you seem to think....the twice translated non verbatim statements are unreliable and inadmissable as evidence against the mccanns . The fact you cannot see that is testamant to your poor understanding of the case
-
Made a pig's ear of it? That's a serious allegation unsupported by any evidence.
So how about some supporting evidence of this pig's ear? That would mean multiple serious instances of errors of commission and/or multiple serious instances of errors of omission.
I can remember one instance of a minor error in a statement.
Let´s see you prove your 'pig's ear' allegation.
the pigs ear is supported by evidence......amarals incorrect assumptions made from the foresnsic evidence beiing a very pertinent point.
-
What they should aspire to is not relevant, since it does not reflect the reality of PJ capability in 2007 nor the requirements of the legal system.
The reality is they did not record interviews and the legal system did not require this.
They did not use your much-vaunted HOLMES, irrespective of whether you think they should aspire to this.
They did not have a DNA database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to that or not.
They did not have a paedophile database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to have one or not.
They did not have PACE, irrespective of your views on aspirations.
And that is realism. Perhaps the McCanns should have gone to a seaside town in the UK instead, when they would have got UK policing and no need to interact with Johnny Foreigner.
Cite a case in Portugal in 2007 where interviews were recorded on DVD and you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are simply PJ-bashing.
We know what they didn't have but thanks for the list anyway and for reminding us of what sort of organisation it is / was.
-
There is a lot more to the case than you seem to think....the twice translated non verbatim statements are unreliable and inadmissable as evidence against the mccanns . The fact you cannot see that is testamant to your poor understanding of the case
T'would help if you would inform the forum as to this 'lot more'. No doubt admissible as evidence. And by the way, I did not claim 'against the McCanns'.
Apart from that, what have you trotted out here? The one-trick pony called 'twice translated non-verbatim' statements. What goes around comes around.
Not a single example of a problem with them. Not one. Not any. Surely you must be replete with examples?
-
the pigs ear is supported by evidence......amarals incorrect assumptions made from the foresnsic evidence beiing a very pertinent point.
Let me see. We were discussing statements and the method of taking thereof.
You said "the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling".
I asked for evidence of the PJ making a pig's ear of the statements. Omission or commission.
And you respond about 'foresnsic' evidence?
*&*%£
-
We know what they didn't have but thanks for the list anyway and for reminding us of what sort of organisation it is / was.
Feel free to compare it to any other country of around 11m people in 2007 and see if you can come up with better.
As I said before, if the McCanns were concerned about Portugal, then why not have a nice little holiday in Britain?
And if they were concerned, why not make better arrangements for their kids? They had a menu to choose from.
-
Feel free to compare it to any other country of around 11m people in 2007 and see if you can come up with better.
As I said before, if the McCanns were concerned about Portugal, then why not have a nice little holiday in Britain?
And if they were concerned, why not make better arrangements for their kids? They had a menu to choose from.
The McCanns were foolish yes, but we have all learned from their mistakes - I would certainly now choose a nice little holiday in Britain over a week in Portugal any time.
-
The McCanns were foolish yes, but we have all learned from their mistakes - I would certainly now choose a nice little holiday in Britain over a week in Portugal any time.
Speak for yourself
If ive learned anythng from their "mistakes" its a tonne of stuff , none of it to do wth childcare
@)(++(*
-
Let me see. We were discussing statements and the method of taking thereof.
You said "the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling".
I asked for evidence of the PJ making a pig's ear of the statements. Omission or commission.
And you respond about 'foresnsic' evidence?
*&*%£
Davel likes to put posters through hoops on the tiniest of details but doesnt do too well the other way around when his sweeping unsupported statements are challenged.
-
T'would help if you would inform the forum as to this 'lot more'. No doubt admissible as evidence. And by the way, I did not claim 'against the McCanns'.
Apart from that, what have you trotted out here? The one-trick pony called 'twice translated non-verbatim' statements. What goes around comes around.
Not a single example of a problem with them. Not one. Not any. Surely you must be replete with examples?
simple question which you will be unable to answer...how accurate are the twice transalted non verbatim statements. The answer is you don't know...end of
what we do know is that they are not admisable as evidence against the McCanns....another pigs ear by the PJ
-
T'would help if you would inform the forum as to this 'lot more'. No doubt admissible as evidence. And by the way, I did not claim 'against the McCanns'.
Apart from that, what have you trotted out here? The one-trick pony called 'twice translated non-verbatim' statements. What goes around comes around.
Not a single example of a problem with them. Not one. Not any. Surely you must be replete with examples?
This note from the translator - would strongly suggest that translating the statements was not exactly a walk in the park.
QUOTE
905 to 917 Witness statement of Matthew David Oldfield 2007.05.10
918-Consent for mouth swab for Matthew David Oldfield
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
04-Processo 04 Page 905 to 917
[M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.]
End quote
Surely the only reason the McCanns would have the files translated by professionals is because of inaccuracies.
One mistranslated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
Another example of how translating and retranslating can produce errors is mentioned in Kate's book about her diary which was translated from English to Portuguese and then back to English.
Quote
''I was really upset'' had become ''I was fed up''
''I never felt that relaxed'' had become 'I'd never felt so relaxed''
Unquote
In that last example by changing just two little words i.e.
''that'' to ''so''
and
''I'' to ''I'd'' ..... means that the opposite meaning of what she had really said was wrongly conveyed to the reader.
-
simple question which you will be unable to answer...how accurate are the twice transalted non verbatim statements. The answer is you don't know...end of
what we do know is that they are not admisable as evidence against the McCanns....another pigs ear by the PJ
Well
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido)
Seems to say otherwise once they were made arguidos.
-
simple question which you will be unable to answer...how accurate are the twice transalted non verbatim statements. The answer is you don't know...end of
what we do know is that they are not admisable as evidence against the McCanns....another pigs ear by the PJ
Actually, anyone who has studied the files does know the answer to this. As I stated earlier (not twice translated so it should have got through) there is but one instance of a person reporting an error in a previous statement, and that was a minor error.
To repeat, if you claim the PJ made a pig's ear of the statements there should be multiple serious errors of omission and/or commission. It's up to you to provide the instances of this.
To date, you have studiously avoided doing so, thus I can be confident the this 'pig's ear' exists only in your imagination.
-
This note from the translator - would strongly suggest that translating the statements was not exactly a walk in the park.
QUOTE
905 to 917 Witness statement of Matthew David Oldfield 2007.05.10
918-Consent for mouth swab for Matthew David Oldfield
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
04-Processo 04 Page 905 to 917
[M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.]
End quote
Surely the only reason the McCanns would have the files translated by professionals is because of inaccuracies.
One mistranslated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
Another example of how translating and retranslating can produce errors is mentioned in Kate's book about her diary which was translated from English to Portuguese and then back to English.
Quote
''I was really upset'' had become ''I was fed up''
''I never felt that relaxed'' had become 'I'd never felt so relaxed''
Unquote
In that last example by changing just two little words i.e.
''that'' to ''so''
and
''I'' to ''I'd'' ..... means that the opposite meaning of what she had really said was wrongly conveyed to the reader.
When I got assaulted, the police constable did not conduct an interview that was recorded. Nor did he write my statement as a 100% accurate record of what I literally said. Indeed, in that statement, there was nothing in the format 'SIL said that ...'. It was a non-verbatim account of what had happened.
I was then asked to read the statement, and sign if I agreed it was accurate.
The procedure involved in Portugal is, for some, one step more complex than this, purely due to the fact that certain people don't speak Portuguese. In that case translation is needed.
Does Portuguese use identical structures to English? Of course not, that is why it is a foreign language. The acid test is still whether anyone complained that their statement, signed by them as being accurate, was in fact in error.
I am not going to go down the diary route unless someone persuades me it was entered into evidence, which I understand it was not. I have no recollection of Kate signing a translation of her diary to say it was accurate.
-
Actually, anyone who has studied the files does know the answer to this. As I stated earlier (not twice translated so it should have got through) there is but one instance of a person reporting an error in a previous statement, and that was a minor error.
To repeat, if you claim the PJ made a pig's ear of the statements there should be multiple serious errors of omission and/or commission. It's up to you to provide the instances of this.
To date, you have studiously avoided doing so, thus I can be confident the this 'pig's ear' exists only in your imagination.
So what you're claiming is that in the thousands upon thousands of pages of statements taken, there is only one reported mistake?! Well then that makes the PJ 99.99999999% accurate, so not far off the 100% you claimed they shouldn't aspire to. Amazing!
-
So what you're claiming is that in the thousands upon thousands of pages of statements taken, there is only one reported mistake?! Well then that makes the PJ 99.99999999% accurate, so not far off the 100% you claimed they shouldn't aspire to. Amazing!
No, it doesn't.
I said I am aware of a single instance where a person claims that a previous statement was in error (due to omission/commission).
The files are replete with errors, notably impossibilities of timings, but that is because the statement giver got it wrong, not the statement taker.
If you think there is more than one reported mistake, then ....
*&*%£
-
No, it doesn't.
I said I am aware of a single instance where a person claims that a previous statement was in error (due to omission/commission).
The files are replete with errors, notably impossibilities of timings, but that is because the statement giver got it wrong, not the statement taker.
If you think there is more than one reported mistake, then ....
*&*%£
We're talking about errors in statement taking, not errors in witness recollection, but you knew that already...
-
We're talking about errors in statement taking, not errors in witness recollection, but you knew that already...
Alleged, not proved.
-
We're talking about errors in statement taking, not errors in witness recollection, but you knew that already...
Which alleged errors are you referring to ?
-
We're talking about errors in statement taking, not errors in witness recollection, but you knew that already...
I certainly did, as the post of mine that you quoted made clear.
So, just how many errors in statement taking do you know of?
This seems to be a tough question to answer for those using the 'twice translated non-verbatim' argument, judging by the total lack of examples raised so far.
-
I certainly did, as the post of mine that you quoted made clear.
So, just how many errors in statement taking do you know of?
This seems to be a tough question to answer for those using the 'twice translated non-verbatim' argument, judging by the total lack of examples raised so far.
We had a whole thread on this topic at one time.
The answer came up a lemon. It looks like history is about to repeat itself.... 8(0(*
-
I certainly did, as the post of mine that you quoted made clear.
So, just how many errors in statement taking do you know of?
This seems to be a tough question to answer for those using the 'twice translated non-verbatim' argument, judging by the total lack of examples raised so far.
its an impossible question to answer because we have no accurate record of what the mccanns actually said.
what is blindingly obvious is that a non verbatim twice trannslated statement will be prone to errors and your refusal to accept that simple fact is making you look rather silly
-
I certainly did, as the post of mine that you quoted made clear.
So, just how many errors in statement taking do you know of?
This seems to be a tough question to answer for those using the 'twice translated non-verbatim' argument, judging by the total lack of examples raised so far.
I'm happy to suspend disbelief and agree with you that out of millions of transcribed words there is literally only one mistake in the whole lot, because if you say it's so, it must be so, yar?
-
its an impossible question to answer because we have no accurate record of what the mccanns actually said.
what is blindingly obvious that a non verbatim twice trannslated statement will be prone to errors and your refusal to accept that simple fact is making you look rather silly
As witness statement in PT cannot be used in court, they only exist to allow the PJ to form an opinion of what happened. I don't think it is SiL who is looking silly.
-
As witness statement in PT cannot be used in court, they only exist to allow the PJ to form an opinion of what happened. I don't think it is SiL who is looking silly.
how can the pj form an opinion of what happeneed if the statemnt is not accurate.....I think it is not just sil looking silly
-
its an impossible question to answer because we have no accurate record of what the mccanns actually said.
what is blindingly obvious is that a non verbatim twice trannslated statement will be prone to errors and your refusal to accept that simple fact is making you look rather silly
What we have is a system prescribed by Portuguese law and deployed in Portugal for those who do not speak Portuguese, and to say the PJ made a pig's ear of the statements is indefensible.
The various witnesses signed to confirm that what was in the statements was what they said. When people did multiple statements, they were asked if previous statements were correct, with no complaints. Despite all the defences deployed by Kate in her book, I cannot remember her claiming that any statement was incorrect, even though she had access to a professionally translated copy of the PJ Files.
The only people making out there is an issue with the statements seem to be using an unproven fact to bash the PJ, possibly with the aim of deflecting criticism from the McCanns.
All without an iota of evidence.
-
I'm happy to suspend disbelief and agree with you that out of millions of transcribed words there is literally only one mistake in the whole lot, because if you say it's so, it must be so, yar?
When I said you played silly games, I did not expect another one so soon.
You know full well I did not claim there is only mistake in those statements where an interpreter was used, so why make it appear that I did?
I take it you can't come up with further examples either.
8((()*/
-
What we have is a system prescribed by Portuguese law and deployed in Portugal for those who do not speak Portuguese, and to say the PJ made a pig's ear of the statements is indefensible.
The various witnesses signed to confirm that what was in the statements was what they said. When people did multiple statements, they were asked if previous statements were correct, with no complaints. Despite all the defences deployed by Kate in her book, I cannot remember her claiming that any statement was incorrect, even though she had access to a professionally translated copy of the PJ Files.
The only people making out there is an issue with the statements seem to be using an unproven fact to bash the PJ, possibly with the aim of deflecting criticism from the McCanns.
All without an iota of evidence.
It is a fact that there will be mistakes in twice translated non verbatim statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded
-
It is a fact that there will be mistakes in twice translated non verbatim statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded
Why simply parrot the same sentence over and over? You had the chance to address the points I raised, but the best you can do is a jibe.
That demonstrates your knowledge of language translation.
And again, if you really believe so much of the information in the PJ Files cannot be trusted, what is the point in continuing?
-
Why simply parrot the same sentence over and over? You had the chance to address the points I raised, but the best you can do is a jibe.
That demonstrates your knowledge of language translation.
And again, if you really believe so much of the information in the PJ Files cannot be trusted, what is the point in continuing?
anyone with any sense would realise twice translated non verbatim statenets will contain errors. anyone who does not realise this has little knowledge of language translation. We dont even know the qualifications of those who made the translations
-
anyone with any sense would realise twice translated non verbatim statenets will contain errors. anyone who does not realise this has little knowledge of language translation. We dont even know the qualifications of those who made the translations
Little by little the truth is emerging. You are willing to call into question the competence of the translators is, without actually knowing the qualifications thereof. And this despite, thus far, flagging up not a single problem with the translations.
I don't happen to know the qualifications for, say, a PJ Inspector, or a DCI in SY, but until I get some evidence that they are not up to scratch, I will not make the assumption they are incompetent.
You are working the other way round with the translators.
Did the McCanns ever complain about the competency of the translators?
-
Little by little the truth is emerging. You are willing to call into question the competence of the translators is, without actually knowing the qualifications thereof. And this despite, thus far, flagging up not a single problem with the translations.
I don't happen to know the qualifications for, say, a PJ Inspector, or a DCI in SY, but until I get some evidence that they are not up to scratch, I will not make the assumption they are incompetent.
You are working the other way round with the translators.
Did the McCanns ever complain about the competency of the translators?
you seem to have little knowledge of translating.........twice translated non verbatim statements will have errors .......that is a fact
-
you seem to have little knowledge of translating.........twice translated non verbatim statements will have errors .......that is a fact
Any translation is unlikely to be 100% accurate, with limited exceptions. Consequently your statement is meaningless. It is as meaningless as saying that verbatim, non-translated statements will have errors in them, and that that is a fact.
All one needs to do is to look at what was supposedly being said in some or the rogs to understand the issues with verbatim, non-translated statements.
I put my experience in this respect into this thread earlier on. Perhaps you missed it.
I can translate, to varying degrees of ability, between English, French, Latin, Spanish and Portuguese, but I would not get a job as a translator. Unless you know the qualifications for a translator, you would do well to cease denigrating them.
I see you are still ignoring the points raised and are merely parroting a stock phrase once more.
-
Of all the people who gave statements, has any of them publically complained that the PJ made a bad job of translating their own statement on the basis of what they see in the restored version?
-
Any translation is unlikely to be 100% accurate, with limited exceptions. Consequently your statement is meaningless. It is as meaningless as saying that verbatim, non-translated statements will have errors in them, and that that is a fact.
All one needs to do is to look at what was supposedly being said in some or the rogs to understand the issues with verbatim, non-translated statements.
I put my experience in this respect into this thread earlier on. Perhaps you missed it.
I can translate, to varying degrees of ability, between English, French, Latin, Spanish and Portuguese, but I would not get a job as a translator. Unless you know the qualifications for a translator, you would do well to cease denigrating them.
I see you are still ignoring the points raised and are merely parroting a stock phrase once more.
So at last you accept their will be errors. As these satements are non verbatim and twice translated then the margin of error is likely to be greater...
so sil now accepts that the statements are unlikely to be 100% accurate...progress at last
-
Of all the people who gave statements, has any of them publically complained that the PJ made a bad job of translating their own statement on the basis of what they see in the restored version?
The only person who I have seen commenting is Kate McCann, and she says 'might'; nothing definite, no examples. CRG took statements too, in English, and got them wrong apparently;
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and
discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English!
Madeleine Kate McCann.
-
Of all the people who gave statements, has any of them publically complained that the PJ made a bad job of translating their own statement on the basis of what they see in the restored version?
I have no evidence of anyone complaining, though that is probably not significant, in most instances.
What I cannot remember seeing is the McCanns complaining, when they had a professionally translated copy of the PJ Files. If that is correct, then it is reasonable to assume the statements accurately reflect what the McCanns said, and the twice-translated, non-verbatim argument comes crashing down like a pack of cards.
-
When I said you played silly games, I did not expect another one so soon.
You know full well I did not claim there is only mistake in those statements where an interpreter was used, so why make it appear that I did?
I take it you can't come up with further examples either.
8((()*/
There is at least one thread on this forum devoted to the subject I believe. You claimed there was only one mistake reported in the entire Files, I stand corrected, my most humble apologies.
-
The only person who I have seen commenting is Kate McCann, and she says 'might'; nothing definite, no examples. CRG took statements too, in English, and got them wrong apparently;
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and
discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English!
Madeleine Kate McCann.
Here Kate is talking about repeat statements but isn't there only the one brief statement from Kate in the file (before the arguido statements? Did the ones produced by the "Control Risks" not end up in the files?
-
So at last you accept their will be errors. As these satements are non verbatim and twice translated then the margin of error is likely to be greater...
so sil now accepts that the statements are unlikely to be 100% accurate...progress at last
I cannot remember claiming 100% accuracy. If you remember, I was railing against your comment that the PJ translations are a pig's ear, which implies they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
To date, you still have not provided anything that supports this 'pig's ear'.
Actually, you do not appear to have provided anything, if my memory is correct.
-
The only person who I have seen commenting is Kate McCann, and she says 'might'; nothing definite, no examples. CRG took statements too, in English, and got them wrong apparently;
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English!
Madeleine Kate McCann.
May I ask if you are confident this is the only query as to the accuracy of translations in Kate's book. I am not challenging. I could not remember anything about this so you have already done better than me. I just happen to be interested in ferreting out the truth on this point.
OK. So did Kate have access to the translation of the PJ Files when the McCanns gave these new statements? I need to look at the forum section on when CRG was involved.
-
There is at least one thread on this forum devoted to the subject I believe. You claimed there was only one mistake reported in the entire Files, I stand corrected, my most humble apologies.
I have tried looking for the thread and I cannot find it. I am ever-so-slowly building up an index for the forum, with the aims of reducing the number of off-topic posts and cutting the number of groundhog days.
I claimed that I only knew of one incident where someone stated that a previous statement was erroneous. From memory, it is one of the women in the T9, the error was one of omission, and the details are somewhere in the rogatories. And the gist is that something had been said in an interview, but not included in the statement, to which the translator agreed that the interviewee had raised it in a previous interview. That would mean someone interviewed in Portugal twice, with the same translator.
I have no interest in wasting what little I have left of life hunting this down. It matters not a jot.
-
I cannot remember claiming 100% accuracy. If you remember, I was railing against your comment that the PJ translations are a pig's ear, which implies they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
To date, you still have not provided anything that supports this 'pig's ear'.
Actually, you do not appear to have provided anything, if my memory is correct.
I never said the statements were a pigs ear. Never mind translations my post is in english and you have misunderstood that
-
May I ask if you are confident this is the only query as to the accuracy of translations in Kate's book. I am not challenging. I could not remember anything about this so you have already done better than me. I just happen to be interested in ferreting out the truth on this point.
OK. So did Kate have access to the translation of the PJ Files when the McCanns gave these new statements? I need to look at the forum section on when CRG was involved.
Control Risks arrived around 11th May, with IFLG and took the statements on 13th; Sunday. Kate says;
Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ
[Madeleine]
The PJ know about them;
This report was based upon a timeline analysis (the result of statements made to the PJ and to Control Risk by 5 elements of the T9,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
I think one of the five was Jane......
I have never seen copies of those statements in the files.
Kate also said;
The interview system we’d encountered on our previous visit – questions asked in Portuguese and verbally translated into English; answers given in English, translated into Portuguese and typed up by the interviewing officer – was exhausting for everyone. At the end of the interview the statement prepared by the officer would be printed out in Portuguese, verbally translated, on the spot, into English, and then signed by the interviewee. It was
obvious that at every stage of the process the scope for mistakes in translation and misunderstandings was considerable.
[Madeleine].
I can't find any examples of these 'mistakes and misunderstandings' though.
-
03-CARTAS ROGATORIAS UK (FILE 3) Page 11
cr3_10
Leicestershire Police Force
Witness Statement
Janet Kennedy
Occupation: Remedial Teacher
Statement consists of 1 page and is true and in accordance with my understanding.
Date 16th May 2008
This statement was elaborated at my request, following a series of interrogations carried out at Leicestershire police HQ on 14th April 2008. The interrogations were part of the investigation into the disappearance of my grand-niece Madeleine McCann. I would like to clarify a statement made during the two interrogations, which due to being translated from English to Portuguese, I think could have been mis-interpreted. Instead of using the term 'is the one who dominates' with regard to the relationship between Kate and Gerry, I would like to state that they respect each other's decisions and all decisions are taken together. It was Kate's own proposal to stay at home and look after the children instead of returning to work as a doctor.
-
I have tried looking for the thread and I cannot find it. I am ever-so-slowly building up an index for the forum, with the aims of reducing the number of off-topic posts and cutting the number of groundhog days.
I claimed that I only knew of one incident where someone stated that a previous statement was erroneous. From memory, it is one of the women in the T9, the error was one of omission, and the details are somewhere in the rogatories. And the gist is that something had been said in an interview, but not included in the statement, to which the translator agreed that the interviewee had raised it in a previous interview. That would mean someone interviewed in Portugal twice, with the same translator.
I have no interest in wasting what little I have left of life hunting this down. It matters not a jot.
Topic: Please list all the translation errors in the PJ files (Read 10215 times)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6432.msg254387#msg254387
-
Who misunderstood? A translator in the UK where her statement was made or a translator in Portugal?
-
Any translation is unlikely to be 100% accurate, with limited exceptions. Consequently your statement is meaningless. It is as meaningless as saying that verbatim, non-translated statements will have errors in them, and that that is a fact.
All one needs to do is to look at what was supposedly being said in some or the rogs to understand the issues with verbatim, non-translated statements.
I put my experience in this respect into this thread earlier on. Perhaps you missed it.
I can translate, to varying degrees of ability, between English, French, Latin, Spanish and Portuguese, but I would not get a job as a translator. Unless you know the qualifications for a translator, you would do well to cease denigrating them.
I see you are still ignoring the points raised and are merely parroting a stock phrase once more.
Shining, in the early years there was discussion on forums about the translators often being amateurs. Good at both languages but hardly professionals.
For example, IIRC, Robert Murat was used. Someone will correct me if I am wrong on that, but I think that I am correct. Little doubt that his understanding of both languages is perfect. However, anyone volunteering to do such translations could be biased. Amateurs are not Police Officers, or subject to Official Codes of Conduct.
Also IIRC, a number of posters on The 3 A's translated. The 3 A's was a very biased forum; very much against The Mccanns
-
I never said the statements were a pigs ear. Never mind translations my post is in english and you have misunderstood that
SIL didnot claim that is what you said
SIL claimed you said the PJ made a pigs ear of them
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg352930#msg352930
@)(++(*
which is, exactly, what you did, now you are dancing around words because you are wrong and cant apologise or debate honestly,whchin your own words, is very telling
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg352693#msg352693
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7275.msg352933#msg352933
-
Shining, in the early years there was discussion on forums about the translators often being amateurs. Good at both languages but hardly professionals.
For example, IIRC, Robert Murat was used. Someone will correct me if I am wrong on that, but I think that I am correct. Little doubt that his understanding of both languages is perfect. However, anyone volunteering to do such translations could be biased. Amateurs are not Police Officers, or subject to Official Codes of Conduct.
Also IIRC, a number of posters on The 3 A's translated. The 3 A's was a very biased forum; very much against The Mccanns
I agree Sadie Robert Murat was the best translator. Shame others turned on him.
-
I agree Sadie Robert Murat was the best translator. Shame others turned on him.
I didn't say that
Despite his language ability, he was not subject to any Codes of Conduct.
Neither he, nor any other amateurs should have been used imo
-
I didn't say that
Despite his language ability, he was not subject to any Codes of Conduct.
Neither he, nor any other amateurs should have been used imo
Which other "amateurs" did the PJ use?
-
Which other "amateurs" did the PJ use?
There was the translator resembling RM who was there on the night and the following day with the PJ when he was once again mistaken for RM, that time by Jenson/Wiltshire.
-
There was the translator resembling RM who was there on the night and the following day with the PJ when he was once again mistaken for RM, that time by Jenson/Wiltshire.
And hisname was?
if that was supposed to be another cynical cryptic post,not interested misty
-
And hisname was?
No-one seems to know.
-
No-one seems to know.
Im goingto slap you with a wet fish in a min
Where did pegasus go?
-
Im goingto slap you with a wet fish in a min
Where did pegasus go?
Many people have asked who the man was doing translating on the 3rd but no-one has provided an answer - so I don't deserve a slapping of any sort.
Think Pegasus must be on holiday, no posts for about a week now.
-
I didn't say that
Despite his language ability, he was not subject to any Codes of Conduct.
Neither he, nor any other amateurs should have been used imo
I thought that is what you meant " Little doubt that his understanding of both languages is perfect."
You can't get much better than perfect.
-
Many people have asked who the man was doing translating on the 3rd but no-one has provided an answer - so I don't deserve a slapping of any sort.
Think Pegasus must be on holiday, no posts for about a week now.
It was obviously someone else wearing glasses
There was one british ex pat iirc who could be likened to him and who parts of the tapas mob suddenly remembered WAS robert murat onmay 15 or so
All the police who knew murat said he wasnt there or didnt see him
I was being facetious as well as serious,chill out
To get back to the point
What amateur translators did the PJ use inofficial context and in the files andwho complained
apart from kate mccann covering her/their bases incase something incriminatory isbrought up no one has complained about translators have they
-
It was obviously someone else wearing glasses
There was one british ex pat iirc who could be likened to him and who parts of the tapas mob suddenly remembered WAS robert murat onmay 15 or so
All the police who knew murat said he wasnt there or didnt see him
.....
Is this for real? There was another person doing translations who looked like Robert Murat on the 3rd - 4th night.
-
It was obviously someone else wearing glasses
There was one british ex pat iirc who could be likened to him and who parts of the tapas mob suddenly remembered WAS robert murat onmay 15 or so
All the police who knew murat said he wasnt there or didnt see him
I was being facetious as well as serious,chill out
To get back to the point
What amateur translators did the PJ use inofficial context and in the files andwho complained
apart from kate mccann covering her/their bases incase something incriminatory isbrought up no one has complained about translators have they
Who would anyone complain to, over a year later, when the statements were put on the internet?
-
Who would anyone complain to, over a year later, when the statements were put on the internet?
They could come onto a forum like this one.
-
Who would anyone complain to, over a year later, when the statements were put on the internet?
Uk media, like all and sundry complained through it for years
-
Uk media, like all and sundry complained through it for years
Aren't the media restricted as regards the witness comments they can publish?
-
Aren't the media restricted as regards the witness comments they can publish?
Doesnt seem so going by the amount of witnesses who spoke to them complaining about the pt police ignoring them etc etc
-
They could come onto a forum like this one.
How could anyone provide the necessary proof to this forum to alter the online testimonies?
-
Doesnt seem so going by the amount of witnesses who spoke to them complaining about the pt police ignoring them etc etc
Have we seen the original statements from those who complained?
-
Aren't the media restricted as regards the witness comments they can publish?
My apologies
Youwere talking about complaints about personal statements to policeandbeng wrongly translated
I suppose none were otherwise no one would have SIGNED when their original statements despite being translated were READ back to them n ENGLISH
you would have to be seriously DUMB to sign a statement read to you i n english which was not what you said, ergo, seeing as the tapasgroup were not DUMB, they agreed and signed ergo the statements are true and valid
And therfore what kate mccann said in her book is utter claptrap
As quoted by g unit
The interview system we’d encountered on our previous visit – questions asked in Portuguese and verbally translated into English; answers given in English, translated into Portuguese and typed up by the interviewing officer – was exhausting for everyone. At the end of the interview the statement prepared by the officer would be printed out in Portuguese, verbally translated, on the spot, into English, and then signed by the interviewee. It was
obvious that at every stage of the process the scope for mistakes in translation and misunderstandings was considerable.
[Madeleine].
Who is she tryng to fool???
Nite now
-
My apologies
Youwere talking about complaints about personal statements to policeandbeng wrongly translated
I suppose none were otherwise no one would have SIGNED when their original statements despite being translated were READ back to them n ENGLISH
you would have to be seriously DUMB to sign a statement read to you i n english which was not what you said, ergo, seeing as the tapasgroup were not DUMB, they agreed and signed ergo the statements are true and valid
And therfore what kate mccann said in her book is utter claptrap
As quoted by g unit
The interview system we’d encountered on our previous visit – questions asked in Portuguese and verbally translated into English; answers given in English, translated into Portuguese and typed up by the interviewing officer – was exhausting for everyone. At the end of the interview the statement prepared by the officer would be printed out in Portuguese, verbally translated, on the spot, into English, and then signed by the interviewee. It was
obvious that at every stage of the process the scope for mistakes in translation and misunderstandings was considerable.
[Madeleine].
Who is she tryng to fool???
Nite now
It all appears to have been a laborious procedure involving tired & stressed people ergo plenty of scope for misunderstandings & errors.
IMO KM was not trying to fool anyone with her comments about the interview system. The language barrier & procedural differences were a massive problem from the start. Compared to the police response when William Tyrrell went missing during daylight hours in Australia, the PJ fell well short of acceptable standards in many areas.
Nite Merc. Please dispose of the fish humanely.
-
It doesnt matter what the process was
The english witnesses were
re read back their statements in english
They agreed and SIGNED them as their statements
Fish all gone
Bye
-
It doesnt matter what the process was
The english witnesses were
re read back their statements in english
They agreed and SIGNED them as their statements
Fish all gone
Bye
the law does not work the way you think it does...as legal documents the statements are worthless. The signature does not confirm any understanding of the contents. thats the way the law works
-
the law does not work the way you think it does...as legal documents the statements are worthless. The signature does not confirm any understanding of the contents. thats the way the law works
That might be true for your own country but does it work like that in Portugal?
-
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
So the witness signs to say the content is accurate and the interpreter to say the translation is accurate. Quite a strong motive for the interpreter to be sure it's correct because they have a legal obligation.
Each interpreter used had to make a statement in court;
From the Lagos Court
Report via Fax to PJ Portimao of the interpreters indicated above with address and phone number.
Summon them by the quickest means for their statement of compromise.
Ask the PJ to provide via Fax the names, addresses, phone numbers of the interpreters mentioned on the previous page.
Afterwards contact them for their statement of compromise in this Court within a maximum delay of 46 hours, according to article 91, number 2 of the CPP:
A list of those used early on;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_457.jpg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm
-
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
So the witness signs to say the content is accurate and the interpreter to say the translation is accurate. Quite a strong motive for the interpreter to be sure it's correct because they have a legal obligation.
Each interpreter used had to make a statement in court;
From the Lagos Court
Report via Fax to PJ Portimao of the interpreters indicated above with address and phone number.
Summon them by the quickest means for their statement of compromise.
Ask the PJ to provide via Fax the names, addresses, phone numbers of the interpreters mentioned on the previous page.
Afterwards contact them for their statement of compromise in this Court within a maximum delay of 46 hours, according to article 91, number 2 of the CPP:
A list of those used early on;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_457.jpg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm
When you go into hospital for surgery you will sign a form saying the treatment has been explained and you understand it. What legal weight do you think that signature carries.
I know the answer...do you
-
When you go into hospital for surgery you will sign a form saying the treatment has been explained and you understand it. What legal weight do you think that signature carries.
I know the answer...do you
Well we know what happens if you don't sign...
-
Well we know what happens if you don't sign...
so you dont know the answer
-
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
-
When you go into hospital for surgery you will sign a form saying the treatment has been explained and you understand it. What legal weight do you think that signature carries.
I know the answer...do you
Are you comparing signing a permission form in a UK Hospital to signing a witness statement in a Portuguese police i inquiry?
Could you explain the similarities and differences between the purposes of the signatures and the similarities and differences in the legal systems of the two countries?
-
so you dont know the answer
You imply the consent signature has no value yet you will not get surgical treatment without it. Or are you talking dental forms.
-
....
A list of those used early on;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_457.jpg)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm
Were they able to work out what that last interpreter's name was?
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
If the original statement was written in English then translated into Portuguese and both the translation and the original signed that would be better than the verbal English statement being translated into a written Portuguese statement.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htmIf the original statement was written in English then translated into Portuguese and both the translation and the original signed that would be better than the verbal English statement being translated into a written Portuguese statement.
Maybe, but CRG took statements in English, wrote them down in English and still made mistakes according to Kate. Unless, of course, she forgot what she actually said. It was 'many months' before she spotted the mistakes. It depends on the type of mistake.
If she said 'the children had high tea at the Tapas each day and we collected them at 5.30pm' and the written statement said 6,30pm that's clearly a factual mistake by CRG,
If the CRG statement said 'Madeleine asked why we didn't come to the bedroom when the twins cried' Kate may have thought that was a CRG mistake, but that story seems to have changed over time. The question is which version did Kate give to CRG on 13th May 200?
4th May 2007
She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
6th September 2007
Regarding the fact that Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Kate's book
‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’
Madeleine by Kate McCann
-
Maybe, but CRG took statements in English, wrote them down in English and still made mistakes according to Kate. Unless, of course, she forgot what she actually said. It was 'many months' before she spotted the mistakes. It depends on the type of mistake.
If she said 'the children had high tea at the Tapas each day and we collected them at 5.30pm' and the written statement said 6,30pm that's clearly a factual mistake by CRG,
If the CRG statement said 'Madeleine asked why we didn't come to the bedroom when the twins cried' Kate may have thought that was a CRG mistake, but that story seems to have changed over time. The question is which version did Kate give to CRG on 13th May 200?
4th May 2007
She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
6th September 2007
Regarding the fact that Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Kate's book
‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’
Madeleine by Kate McCann
Do we have access to the statements taken by the Control Risks Group?
-
Do we have access to the statements taken by the Control Risks Group?
No.
No comment on the ever changing story of the crying then? Mistranslations? Misunderstandings? A demonstration of forgetfulness? Gerry couldn't remember who cried either;
4th May 2007
when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying. As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
10th May 2007
MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
No.
No comment on the ever changing story of the crying then? Mistranslations? Misunderstandings? A demonstration of forgetfulness? Gerry couldn't remember who cried either;
4th May 2007
when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying. As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
10th May 2007
MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
The parents were interpreting something Madeleine had said to them about the night before, something they weren't aware of. They may not have even really understood Madeleine so it is easy to forget, and hard to be sure what was said. Well that is how I understand it.
-
The parents were interpreting something Madeleine had said to them about the night before, something they weren't aware of. They may not have even really understood Madeleine so it is easy to forget, and hard to be sure what was said. Well that is how I understand it.
?
-
No.
No comment on the ever changing story of the crying then? Mistranslations? Misunderstandings? A demonstration of forgetfulness? Gerry couldn't remember who cried either;
4th May 2007
when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying. As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
10th May 2007
MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Each statement refers to Madeleine crying. The discrepancies you highlight are due to omission either by KM or the translator. The primary fact does not alter.
How could either parent have actually heard the crying if they weren't in the apartment at the time?
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htmIf the original statement was written in English then translated into Portuguese and both the translation and the original signed that would be better than the verbal English statement being translated into a written Portuguese statement.
#of course it would and a competent police force would have the english statement
-
Each statement refers to Madeleine crying. The discrepancies you highlight are due to omission either by KM or the translator. The primary fact does not alter.
How could either parent have actually heard the crying if they weren't in the apartment at the time?
The parents had the same interpreter on 4th May; Gerry at 11.15am and Kate at 2,20pm. Both parents told her that Madeleine said the twins cried. What was omitted? Clearly the fact that Madeleine herself cried. She was omitted and a twin was added.
The primary fact is that Madeleine's reported conversation changed over time.
-
Are you comparing signing a permission form in a UK Hospital to signing a witness statement in a Portuguese police i inquiry?
Could you explain the similarities and differences between the purposes of the signatures and the similarities and differences in the legal systems of the two countries?
the signatures on both are meant to confirm that the person understands what has been written ....they are therefore similar and both are legal documents
-
The parents had the same interpreter on 4th May; Gerry at 11.15am and Kate at 2,20pm. Both parents told her that Madeleine said the twins cried. What was omitted? Clearly the fact that Madeleine herself cried. She was omitted and a twin was added.
The primary fact is that Madeleine's reported conversation changed over time.
same interpreter.....and parts of the two statements are identical showing they were the words of the interpreter not the mccanns
-
same interpreter.....and parts of the two statements are identical showing they were the words of the interpreter not the mccanns
So the interpreter made it up and they signed it? I thought they were intelligent.
-
same interpreter.....and parts of the two statements are identical showing they were the words of the interpreter not the mccanns
Same the 'the twins' and 'Madeleine and Sean' cannot be mistranslated either way. And yet you are asserting the translator got it wrong 4 times, twice with Gerry, then twice with Kate whilst Gerry was in the same room.
-
Same the 'the twins' and 'Madeleine and Sean' cannot be mistranslated either way. And yet you are asserting the translator got it wrong 4 times, twice with Gerry, then twice with Kate whilst Gerry was in the same room.
your post has nothing to do with the point I raised and makes little sense.
-
Concerning the child's personality, she was extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and relates to other children with great ease. Still, the deponent said that she would never go with a stranger.
Concerning the child's personality, she was extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and related to other children with great ease. But she would never go with a stranger.
first statement by gerry ...second by kate...almost identical.....obviously the word of the intepteter and not K and G
and we are supposed to believe these are independent statments....absolute tosh
-
So the interpreter made it up and they signed it? I thought they were intelligent.
they are...whilst some here are obviously not
-
same interpreter.....and parts of the two statements are identical showing they were the words of the interpreter not the mccanns
They were READ the statements in ENGLISH and then proceeded to SIGN THEM
Which part of that simple process are you having especial difficulty with?
-
They were READ the statements in ENGLISH and then proceeded to SIGN THEM
Which part of that simple process are you having especial difficulty with?
Nicely put. 8@??)(
-
They were READ the statements in ENGLISH and then proceeded to SIGN THEM
Which part of that simple process are you having especial difficulty with?
most of us worked that out some time ago....what they signed was in portuguese...they had no idea what they were signing...which part of that simple process dont you understand
-
Nicely put. 8@??)(
another one with no undestanding of the law
-
The point I have made is that the signature on that statement is absoluely worthless
-
They were READ the statements in ENGLISH and then proceeded to SIGN THEM
Which part of that simple process are you having especial difficulty with?
On 4/5/2007 Kate signed a statement written in Portuguese which recorded her husband's name as GERARD.
Had she seen the written version, do you think she would have signed it as an accurate record of her testimony?
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Page 59.
-
most of us worked that out some time ago....what they signed was in portuguese...they had no idea what they were signing...which part of that simple process dont you understand
So youre accusing the translators of mouthing something different, and further, importantly different
Correct?
-
The point I have made is that the signature on that statement is absoluely worthless
it could always be thrashed out in a court of law with bilingul lawyers, if it ever came to that,so fret not
-
On 4/5/2007 Kate signed a statement written in Portuguese which recorded her husband's name as GERARD.
Had she seen the written version, do you think she would have signed it as an accurate record of her testimony?
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Page 59.
She signed the written version. Therefore she saw the written version. Whether she read the written version is quite different.
-
On 4/5/2007 Kate signed a statement written in Portuguese which recorded her husband's name as GERARD.
Had she seen the written version, do you think she would have signed it as an accurate record of her testimony?
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Page 59.
Yes, because she would have seen it was just a typo
She wouldnt have READ the statement in any event
-
So youre accusing the translators of mouthing something different, and further, importantly different
Correct?
im saying translation is not an exact science and i find it very odd that statements by two people contain almost tehexact paragraph....im saying the signaure means nothing in a legal sense
-
im saying translation is not an exact science and i find it very odd that statements by two people contain almost tehexact paragraph....im saying the signaure means nothing in a legal sense
You will have a cite for that,wont you
-
interesting how the situation is handled in the uk....
If a witness cannot speak English and a witness statement is required what needs to be done? Some guidance can be found in the rules and in a recent case in the Family Division.
GUIDANCE IN PRACTICE DIRECTION 32
23.2
Where the court has directed that a witness statement in a foreign language is to be filed:
(1) the party wishing to rely on it must –
(a) have it translated, and
(b) file the foreign language witness statement with the court, and
(2) the translator must make and file with the court an affidavit verifying the translation and exhibiting both the translation and a copy of the foreign language witness statement.
so in the uk a version given by the witness is required in their own language which is then translated
-
interesting how the situation is handled in the uk....
If a witness cannot speak English and a witness statement is required what needs to be done? Some guidance can be found in the rules and in a recent case in the Family Division.
GUIDANCE IN PRACTICE DIRECTION 32
23.2
Where the court has directed that a witness statement in a foreign language is to be filed:
(1) the party wishing to rely on it must –
(a) have it translated, and
(b) file the foreign language witness statement with the court, and
(2) the translator must make and file with the court an affidavit verifying the translation and exhibiting both the translation and a copy of the foreign language witness statement.
so in the uk a version given by the witness is required in their own language which is then translated
Trouble is, they were in Portugal. With Portuguesers. And Portuguese law.
Do you have anything that suggests it contravenes Portuguese law?
Or are we back to the UK requires driving on the left, while Portugal requires driving on the right?
-
interesting how the situation is handled in the uk....
If a witness cannot speak English and a witness statement is required what needs to be done? Some guidance can be found in the rules and in a recent case in the Family Division.
GUIDANCE IN PRACTICE DIRECTION 32
23.2
Where the court has directed that a witness statement in a foreign language is to be filed:
(1) the party wishing to rely on it must –
(a) have it translated, and
(b) file the foreign language witness statement with the court, and
(2) the translator must make and file with the court an affidavit verifying the translation and exhibiting both the translation and a copy of the foreign language witness statement.
so in the uk a version given by the witness is required in their own language which is then translated
Thats not a cite for your statement that their PT statements are worthless legally
Try again
-
Trouble is, they were in Portugal. With Portuguesers. And Portuguese law.
Do you have anything that suggests it contravenes Portuguese law?
Or are we back to the UK requires driving on the left, while Portugal requires driving on the right?
But you haven't shown us what it states in Portuguese law. It could be the GA didn't follow the correct procedure.
-
But you haven't shown us what it states in Portuguese law. It could be the GA didn't follow the correct procedure.
CITE.
-
But you haven't shown us what it states in Portuguese law. It could be the GA didn't follow the correct procedure.
You mean G Amaral changed the interviewing processes which are a matter of PJ/Justice Ministry protocol?
Any evidence?No, didnt think so
-
You mean G Amaral changed the interviewing processes which are a matter of PJ/Justice Ministry protocol?
Any evidence?No, didnt think so
The questions the witnesses were asked don't appear in the files. How do we know that the translators asked the correct questions posed by the PJ?
-
The questions the witnesses were asked don't appear in the files. How do we know that the translators asked the correct questions posed by the PJ?
Notfollowing
Why wouldnt they be
-
You mean G Amaral changed the interviewing processes which are a matter of PJ/Justice Ministry protocol?
Any evidence?No, didnt think so
Wasn't up to those who were saying he was following the correct procedure to show us the procedure? I am asking them to show us that he was following the correct procedure. For it blatantly faulty as when you compare it with the UK process as there is no record of the actual foreign language (the actual statement). SiL is the one in Portugal who can access the correct PJ procedure and she is the one suggesting it followed the Portuguese law.
Trouble is, they were in Portugal. With Portuguesers. And Portuguese law.
-
Trouble is, they were in Portugal. With Portuguesers. And Portuguese law.
Do you have anything that suggests it contravenes Portuguese law?
Or are we back to the UK requires driving on the left, while Portugal requires driving on the right?
no what we are saying is taht it is obvious that the pj should have taken a signed statement in english which then could have been translated into portuguese...instead they made a pigs ear of the whole thing
-
Notfollowing
Why wouldnt they be
e.g.
Which door did you normally use when leaving the apartment?
Which door did you use to leave the apartment?
-
Wasn't up to those who were saying he was following the correct procedure to show us the procedure? I am asking them to show us that he was following the correct procedure. For it blatantly faulty as when you compare it with the UK process as there is no record of the actual foreign language (the actual statement). SiL is the one in Portugal who can access the correct PJ procedure and she is the one suggesting it followed the Portuguese law.
Stop being so ridiculous
-
Stop being so ridiculous
That request is not ridiculous. It is standard practice to refer to a procedure.
-
e.g.
Which door did you normally use when leaving the apartment?
Which door did you use to leave the apartment?
Whats wrong withthat
-
Whats wrong with that
e.g.
"Which door did you normally use when leaving the apartment?
Which door did you use to leave the apartment?" They are two different questions. If you answered Q1 differently to Q2 you could be accused of lying.
-
e.g.
"Which door did you normally use when leaving the apartment?
Which door did you use to leave the apartment?" They are two different questions. If you answered Q1 differently to Q2 you could be accused of lying.
Were those questions asked consecutively? No iirc
You do know dont you that police have the preogative and legal right to question as they seem fit within the rules
They even have the right to try and trip up "suspects"
Innocent people dont have to be worried abut such tactics , theyre there to cover all bases
-
Were those questions asked consecutively? No iirc
You do know dont you that police have the preogative and legal right to question as they seem fit within the rules
They even have the right to try and trip up "suspects"
Innocent people dont have to be worried abut such tactics , theyre there to cover all bases
Only one of the questions may have been asked but there is no record of which one. How it was worded could totally alter the interpretation of the answer provided by a witness to said question and mislead the investigation team.
-
Only one of the questions may have been asked but there is no record of which one. How it was worded could totally alter the interpretation of the answer provided by a witness to said question and mislead the investigation team.
ooo
So i suppose depending on which way a question was asked it might lead to gerry mccann sayng he used his key to enter his flat at 9pm that night when he didnt actually do so according to him in a later statement, was just tricked into it?
Had enough of this crapola
-
Were those questions asked consecutively? No iirc
You do know dont you that police have the preogative and legal right to question as they seem fit within the rules
They even have the right to try and trip up "suspects"
Innocent people dont have to be worried abut such tactics , theyre there to cover all bases
You are making presumptions about guilt and innocence again Mercury. You are very biased.
-
The idea that innocent people don't have to worry about police tactics designed to trip them up and extract potentially incriminating evidence really is quite laughable. How many innocent people have been charged and tried for crimes they didn't commit over the years?
-
im saying translation is not an exact science and i find it very odd that statements by two people contain almost tehexact paragraph....im saying the signaure means nothing in a legal sense
Did anyone think it is?
kelirikko: even Google translate can't get that one right.
There are to all intents and purposes no technical terms in Arabic.
Technical German is a foreign language to most Germans.
"Vorpsrung durch technik" has several translations from "to leap ahead through engineering" to "the lump that appears on your thumb after you hit it with a Brummie screwdriver".
It could be that you are not the only one who finds/found it odd that two statements contain almost the same paragraph.
-
Did anyone think it is?
kelirikko: even Google translate can't get that one right.
There are to all intents and purposes no technical terms in Arabic.
Technical German is a foreign language to most Germans.
"Vorpsrung durch technik" has several translations from "to leap ahead through engineering" to "the lump that appears on your thumb after you hit it with a Brummie screwdriver".
It could be that you are not the only one who finds/found it odd that two statements contain almost the same paragraph.
Can you access the PT procedures on interviewing foreigners? Like should there be a copy of their statement in their own language?
-
The idea that innocent people don't have to worry about police tactics designed to trip them up and extract potentially incriminating evidence really is quite laughable. How many innocent people have been charged and tried for crimes they didn't commit over the years?
<9%.
-
<9%.
As many as that! That is shocking.
-
The idea that innocent people don't have to worry about police tactics designed to trip them up and extract potentially incriminating evidence really is quite laughable. How many innocent people have been charged and tried for crimes they didn't commit over the years?
Beyond doubt, there were honest officers in the PJ ranks ( Inspector Dias, emphatically and unreservedly one); also Carlos who, as a whole, demonstrated himself honest (even if he did have a wobbly bit in the middle) but this idea that you can tell outright lies to suspects in a bid to get them crack (as the PJ did) doesn't sit comfortably.
-
You are making presumptions about guilt and innocence again Mercury. You are very biased.
Nope
You seem to have a problem with comprehension
-
The idea that innocent people don't have to worry about police tactics designed to trip them up and extract potentially incriminating evidence really is quite laughable. How many innocent people have been charged and tried for crimes they didn't commit over the years?
Nope dont start twisting and dont bring innocent into it as it doesnt figure at all
IF police suspect someone they are within their rights to ask trick questions, any questions
Questions by police never convicted anyone
Courts did
-
Thats not a cite for your statement that their PT statements are worthless legally
Try again
Did you find your cite davel that proves signed police statements by foreigners are legally worthless?
NO didnt thnk so, in future dont state things as facts without proof, ta,
-
Nope dont start twisting and dont bring innocent into it as it doesnt figure at all
IF police suspect someone they are within their rights to ask trick questions, any questions
Questions by police never convicted anyone
Courts did
So I suspect you (of attempting to implicate innocent people in a crime they didn't commit.)
What 'trick questions' can I (legitmatey) ask?
-
Nope
You seem to have a problem with comprehension
Well I might be having more than the usual trouble comprehending you. I'll get it soon.
-
As many as that! That is shocking.
Look at it the other way.
Up to 9% of guilty parties get away with it.
Based on the "beyond reasonable doubt" yardstick we have. I posted a paper on it a while back.
Well off topic here but if you want "shocking" checkout the full reason for Ruth Ellis being handed a death sentence then compare it with modern life.
-
Look at it the other way.
Up to 9% of guilty parties get away with it.
.....
That fact makes it even worse when you think about the criminals getting away with their crimes able to do the same or worse again.
-
Did you find your cite davel that proves signed police statements by foreigners are legally worthless?
NO didnt thnk so, in future dont state things as facts without proof, ta,
its common sense which seems to be in short supply. The mccanns were asked to sign a statement they did not understand. There is no record of what they were told was in the statement. very poor police work and legally worthless
-
its common sense which seems to be in short supply. The mccanns were asked to sign a statement they did not understand. There is no record of what they were told was in the statement. very poor police work and legally worthless
So no cite then.
-
So no cite then.
google common sense
-
So I suspect you (of attempting to implicate innocent people in a crime they didn't commit.)
What 'trick questions' can I (legitmatey) ask?
So how do the police know who is innocent?
-
Statements taken during an investigation in Portugal;
Your statements can be produced as evidence, but they only count as an admission of guilt if they are made before the Magistrate.
The written record of your statements made during the investigation may only be read in court at your own request or, if they were made before the Magistrate, if there is any conflict or discrepancy between them and the statements you make in court.
They may also be read to the court if you choose to remain silent in court.
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-PT-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2
-
Statements taken during an investigation in Portugal;
Your statements can be produced as evidence, but they only count as an admission of guilt if they are made before the Magistrate.
The written record of your statements made during the investigation may only be read in court at your own request or, if they were made before the Magistrate, if there is any conflict or discrepancy between them and the statements you make in court.
They may also be read to the court if you choose to remain silent in court.
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-PT-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2
i doubt any of these statements could be produced in court as they were non arguido
-
Statements taken during an investigation in Portugal;
Your statements can be produced as evidence, but they only count as an admission of guilt if they are made before the Magistrate.
The written record of your statements made during the investigation may only be read in court at your own request or, if they were made before the Magistrate, if there is any conflict or discrepancy between them and the statements you make in court.
They may also be read to the court if you choose to remain silent in court.
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-PT-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2
Will an interpreter be provided if I don't speak the language?
It does say what language your statement will be made in.
-
Statements taken during an investigation in Portugal;
Your statements can be produced as evidence, but they only count as an admission of guilt if they are made before the Magistrate.
The written record of your statements made during the investigation may only be read in court at your own request or, if they were made before the Magistrate, if there is any conflict or discrepancy between them and the statements you make in court.
They may also be read to the court if you choose to remain silent in court.
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-PT-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2
Going off topic, explains a lot about the Cipriano case.
-
i doubt any of these statements could be produced in court as they were non arguido
If you can find a cite supporting your opinion your doubts may be worth considering. Statements are made at various stages of an investigation, pre and post arguido. The term 'statements' suggests both are included or there would be a distinction.
-
Did you find your cite davel that proves signed police statements by foreigners are legally worthless?
NO didnt thnk so, in future dont state things as facts without proof, ta,
In NZ they have provisions in the Evidence Act for translations:
Subsection 135 Translations and transcripts
(1)
A party may offer a document that purports to be a translation into English of a document in a language other than English, or a translation into Māori of a document in a language other than Māori, if—
(a)
notice is given to all other parties in sufficient time before the hearing to provide those other parties with a fair opportunity to scrutinise the translation; and
(b)
all other requirements prescribed in regulations made under section 201 concerning that document are satisfied.
So that must mean the statement is taken in your native language. Would they not have similar provision in Portugal?
-
i have looked at a statement given by a native portuguese speaker . The final paragraph...reads ratifies and signs is exactly the same wording as on the McCanns statements. So on the instruction of the pj the mcCanns signed confirming they had read the statement...that is a falsehood
-
i have looked at a statement given by a native portuguese speaker . The final paragraph...reads ratifies and signs is exactly the same wording as on the McCanns statements. So on the instruction of the pj the mcCanns signed confirming they had read the statement...that is a falsehood
Correct!
Unless the McCanns can read Portuguese (which I'm confident they can't).
The statement at the conclusion of each statement taken would only be true of those who either are Portuguese or have the language as a second one (if not native Portuguese).
It is a pity that some people see flagging up this anomaly as somehow 'xenophobic'. I don't think (at least the majority of us) who raise this point are attempting to bash the Portuguese at all, or even decry their efforts.
Certainly I am not. I think the Portuguese pulled out all the stops in an effort to conduct an honest enquiry and I also think there was some (genuinely excellent) police work (on the Portuguese side) in the enquiry.
I have long acknowledged that.
I also think the potential for loss or misinterpretation of information (from translation issues) was considerable, and should not be underestimated.
-
The same thing would apply to all the English speaking statement givers where their statement was written in Portuguese and they were not able to read Portuguese and signed their statement. I still think we need to see what the official procedures were in Portugal. Two other countries mentioned in this thread take the foreign language statements in the Native language and they are later translated.
-
If they signed something to say they read something and agreed with it and hadn't, that is lying. A certain PJ policemen was convicted of the same.
Of course in the real world they were read an officially translated version of it so could sign it truthfully.
-
In her book Kate says;
We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted
to have every detail we could remember registered properly.
This is the reason she gives for making statements to CRG on 13th May.
On 4th May, however they were met at the police station by two members of the British Consular staff. The British Ambassador also arrived from Lisbon. When they left the police station Angela Morado, the proconsul was with them. Waiting in their apartment were John Buck, Bill Henderson, Liz Dow and Andy Bowes. All British Embassy or Consul staff. Then three family liaison officers arrived from LP. During the following days they saw the FLO's every day and were visited again by John Buck and Bill Henderson. Gerry spoke to John Buck and Margaret Beckett;
He pleaded with them both to try to improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled. We needed it to be far better than this, he told them.
[Madeleine]
If the McCanns were unhappy about their statements, why did they not seek advice from this long list of people who were available during that first week? Any one of those listed could have helped them to act on their concerns.
-
So how do the police know who is innocent?
That is not for the police to decide. It is for the courts. The job of the police is to gather enough evidence to get a suspect before a judge and a jury for them to decide the rights and the wrongs of the case as argued by prosecution and defence lawyers.
All in accordance with the law of the land not within the pages of a penny dreadful 'whodunnittheparentsofcourse' as decided by the man who found no evidence to bring anyone to trial, let alone at the time asking the right questions of the right people who had until 2013 to cover their tracks.
-
In her book Kate says;
We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted
to have every detail we could remember registered properly.
This is the reason she gives for making statements to CRG on 13th May.
On 4th May, however they were met at the police station by two members of the British Consular staff. The British Ambassador also arrived from Lisbon. When they left the police station Angela Morado, the proconsul was with them. Waiting in their apartment were John Buck, Bill Henderson, Liz Dow and Andy Bowes. All British Embassy or Consul staff. Then three family liaison officers arrived from LP. During the following days they saw the FLO's every day and were visited again by John Buck and Bill Henderson. Gerry spoke to John Buck and Margaret Beckett;
He pleaded with them both to try to improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled. We needed it to be far better than this, he told them.
[Madeleine]
If the McCanns were unhappy about their statements, why did they not seek advice from this long list of people who were available during that first week? Any one of those listed could have helped them to act on their concerns.
so we have confirmation that Kate expressed concern about the standard of translation...thank you
-
If they signed something to say they read something and agreed with it and hadn't, that is lying. A certain PJ policemen was convicted of the same.
Of course in the real world they were read an officially translated version of it so could sign it truthfully.
The problem with that method was that it is the same person doing the translation and reading the translation back in English can repeat the same mistake twice. It really needs to verified by an independent translator. There is far too much dependency on the correctness of just one translator in this situation that was occurring in this case.
I'll be very surprised if it followed the official procedures.
-
The innaccuracies in the statements are one of the biggest sticks with which to beat the McCanns
it is very hard for the sceptics to accept the discrepancies are caused by poor translation
-
Going off topic, explains a lot about the Cipriano case.
I'm not sure you have gone off topic there.
Goncalo Amaral's hands were tied when it came to the previous missing child case he and his team had worked and Madeleine McCann's case.
Just as Scotland Yard have taken home invasions which occurred throughout the region very seriously indeed the fact that another child went missing in a neighbouring town was worthy of a closer look when Madeleine too disappeared.
We have all seen the fictional TV detectives in front of maps which pinpoint similar incidents which may or may not be related to the case under investigation. I believe something similar happens in real life casework.
Not in this case though, without calling attention to the fact there may have been a miscarriage of justice in one.
The solution to that appears not to have been a positive one of looking for two children missing a few miles apart who might very well still have been alive ... but to set the stage based on poorly understood forensic work to ensure a second miscarriage of justice.
So in my opinion ... not in the slightest "off topic" as I think it goes a long way to understanding the misinterpretation of the evidence when a comparison of both cases with the same lead detective in charge is made.
-
The innaccuracies in the statements are one of the biggest sticks with which to beat the McCanns
it is very hard for the sceptics to accept the discrepancies are caused by poor translation
Exactly, if the statements were taken in English for English speakers then we would all have a reference to fall back on to read, but now we haven't and there could be errors due to both causes and one can't tell which is which.
-
Exactly, if the statements were taken in English for English speakers then we would all have a reference to fall back on to read, but now we haven't and there could be errors due to both causes and one can't tell which is which.
It really doesn't matter one whit what anyone thinks about the statements.
The only matter of interest now is the forthcoming judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court.
That will effectively decide the fate of the Mccanns.
-
Correct!
Unless the McCanns can read Portuguese (which I'm confident they can't).
The statement at the conclusion of each statement taken would only be true of those who either are Portuguese or have the language as a second one (if not native Portuguese).
It is a pity that some people see flagging up this anomaly as somehow 'xenophobic'. I don't think (at least the majority of us) who raise this point are attempting to bash the Portuguese at all, or even decry their efforts.
Certainly I am not. I think the Portuguese pulled out all the stops in an effort to conduct an honest enquiry and I also think there was some (genuinely excellent) police work (on the Portuguese side) in the enquiry.
I have long acknowledged that.
I also think the potential for loss or misinterpretation of information (from translation issues) was considerable, and should not be underestimated.
A succinct post, Ferryman.
It is appreciated by most that the work carried out by the Portuguese on behalf of Madeleine was outstanding, with many officers working above and beyond the call of duty.
-
I'm not sure you have gone off topic there.
Goncalo Amaral's hands were tied when it came to the previous missing child case he and his team had worked and Madeleine McCann's case.
Just as Scotland Yard have taken home invasions which occurred throughout the region very seriously indeed the fact that another child went missing in a neighbouring town was worthy of a closer look when Madeleine too disappeared.
We have all seen the fictional TV detectives in front of maps which pinpoint similar incidents which may or may not be related to the case under investigation. I believe something similar happens in real life casework.
Not in this case though, without calling attention to the fact there may have been a miscarriage of justice in one.
The solution to that appears not to have been a positive one of looking for two children missing a few miles apart who might very well still have been alive ... but to set the stage based on poorly understood forensic work to ensure a second miscarriage of justice.
So in my opinion ... not in the slightest "off topic" as I think it goes a long way to understanding the misinterpretation of the evidence when a comparison of both cases with the same lead detective in charge is made.
It explains the use of her statements in court.
-
I disagree with your priority Stephen.
In my opinion the only matter of interest now is how the search for Madeleine has progressed and if the PJ and SY are any closer to resolution.
We know it is considered Madeleine may still be alive and it is known that leads are still being followed.
What will decide "the fate of the McCanns" as you so melodramatically put it lies not in the appeal courts but in the fate of their daughter.
In my opinion whatever the ruling ... it is way down the line in priority when it comes to Madeleine and the distance her case has been allowed to travel thanks to the efforts of her parents.
I don't think many considered legal action a priority.
-
If they signed something to say they read something and agreed with it and hadn't, that is lying. A certain PJ policemen was convicted of the same.
Of course in the real world they were read an officially translated version of it so could sign it truthfully.
I'm assuming that ''Reads, ratifies and signs'' was also typed in Portuguese - and so not necessarily understood at the time of signing?
After hours of interrogation - with every word having to be translated and retranslated- and with every question and answer having to be typed up by the PJ officer - it's not rocket science IMO to assume that all involved were pretty tired by the end of the session.
There is a vast difference between listening to a long statement being read out to you by someone else at THEIR pace, and probably with a foreign accent - and reading a statement, written in your own language and at YOUR pace - when written mistakes would be far more easier to spot.
I have no doubt that mistakes were made - but no-one is to blame for that IMO. There is no such thing as a perfect human being - no matter what their profession is.
AIMHO
-
so we have confirmation that Kate expressed concern about the standard of translation...thank you
We have confirmation that Kate said in her book, published in 2011 that she and her husband had concerns in early May 2007 about the standard of translation.
That doesn't mean she did have concerns at that time, it means she said she did.
-
We have confirmation that Kate said in her book, published in 2011 that she and her husband had concerns in early May 2007 about the standard of translation.
That doesn't mean she did have concerns at that time, it means she said she did.
You seem to be impugning Kate McCann here, any reason for that?
-
Does anyone else find it strange that some people complain about the translations of the PJ files but accept the twice translated version of Amaral's book as truth?
-
Does anyone else find it strange that some people complain about the translations of the PJ files but accept the twice translated version of Amaral's book as truth?
Who does that? There's bound to be a few translation errors in it.
-
For info. This is a new thread, relevant posts are still being transferred into it from other topics.
-
You seem to be impugning Kate McCann here, any reason for that?
I was pointing out the facts. A quote from early May 2007 expressing concern about the statement translations would support what Kate said four years later. Unfortunately I couldn't find one; I did try.
So it's down to ABC.
[Assume Nothing, Believe no-one, Challenge Everything]
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htmIf the original statement was written in English then translated into Portuguese and both the translation and the original signed that would be better than the verbal English statement being translated into a written Portuguese statement.
When the statements are read back to the witness in English they have the opportunity to correct any incorrect entry or omission, that is the whole point of the process. I must say that when I found myself in a similar position in Spain 13 years ago I did find the initial extradition hearing thoroughly confusing when even the lady translator couldn't translate some of the legal jargon into English. Several months later I wasn't being asked to sign a statement but an extradition Order consenting to the process. That was correctly translated into English at the time but later was retranslated by the COPFS in Edinburgh to give a different meaning to that agreed in Madrid.
I also found out later that the original extradition request was altered during translation after having been signed by the Solicitor General for Scotland. These issues are currently the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court in Scotland, I will be updating the relevant threads in due course.
-
I was pointing out the facts. A quote from early May 2007 expressing concern about the statement translations would support what Kate said four years later. Unfortunately I couldn't find one; I did try.
So it's down to ABC.
[Assume Nothing, Believe no-one, Challenge Everything]
Why do you think it doubtful that the McCanns had concerns about the standard of translations back in May 2007 and how do you suppose they should have communicated those concerns publicly at the time, bearing in mind they were bound by judicial secrecy, and why would they have felt it necessary to publicly voice these concerns anyway? Do you imagine that every thought that went through their heads at the time should have become a matter of public record?
-
I would say the procedure in Portugal were as sound as they get and are still being used today. Where a foreigner is being formally interviewed with a view to ultimately signing a statement, the principal document is the Portuguese version signed by the person being interviewed. This must be accompanied by a translated version also signed by the person being interviewed and additionally a signed affidavit by the translator confirming the translation. As long as the foreigner understands what they have signed I see no difficulty. All three documents are legal entities and can be relied on in court.
-
Why do you think it doubtful that the McCanns had concerns about the standard of translations back in May 2007 and how do you suppose they should have communicated those concerns publicly at the time, bearing in mind they were bound by judicial secrecy, and why would they have felt it necessary to publicly voice these concerns anyway? Do you imagine that every thought that went through their heads at the time should have become a matter of public record?
Members of the British Consuls staff had made themselves known to Drs McCann.
What's wrong with the direct approach?
Call the the Consul's office on the phone and say " 'ere John I am less than happy about the translation of the statements I have given to the police what can be done?". Easy old stuff unease recorded, no breach of judicial secrecy no excess publicity and help being sought in the right place.
-
Does anyone else find it strange that some people complain about the translations of the PJ files but accept the twice translated version of Amaral's book as truth?
Not so G. There are times in my posts when I have mentioned the possibility of errors in translation regarding the content of his book.
-
Not so G. There are times in my posts when I have mentioned the possibility of errors in translation regarding the content of his book.
Carana drives me mad with her close semantic analysis of translations of Amaral's book.
I (grudgingly) concede that she (usually) has a point, though ....
-
Members of the British Consuls staff had made themselves known to Drs McCann.
What's wrong with the direct approach?
Call the the Consul's office on the phone and say " 'ere John I am less than happy about the translation of the statements I have given to the police what can be done?". Easy old stuff unease recorded, no breach of judicial secrecy no excess publicity and help being sought in the right place.
Quite. He spoke to these people often. He rang John Buck [the Ambassador] to complain about the way the investigation and search were being handled, but seems to have neglected to mention his and Kate's concerns about translation failings.
-
Quite. He spoke to these people often. He rang John Buck [the Ambassador] to complain about the way the investigation and search were being handled, but seems to have neglected to mention his and Kate's concerns about translation failings.
Has John Buck given the public a full and complete narrative of every concern that was raised with him by the McCanns?
-
Has John Buck given the public a full and complete narrative of every concern that was raised with him by the McCanns?
If the matter was raised with him and he dealt with it there would have been no need to raise it again with CRG.
I'm sure the British Ambassador and Consul knew how the Portuguese system worked and would have been able to either reassure the McCanns or raise their concerns with the investigators if they agreed the statements were not compliant.
-
If the matter was raised with him and he dealt with it there would have been no need to raise it again with CRG.
I'm sure the British Ambassador and Consul knew how the Portuguese system worked and would have been able to either reassure the McCanns or raise their concerns with the investigators if they agreed the statements were not compliant.
And you, as a member of the public, would expect full chapter and verse on any discussion and / or action that was or was not taken would you?
-
Now wasn't it Mr. Buck who didn't believe the Mccanns version of events ?
Mind you, he is far from unique on that.
-
And you, as a member of the public, would expect full chapter and verse on any discussion and / or action that was or was not taken would you?
One of the witnesses wrote a book with a stated aim;
My reason for writing it is simple: to give an account of the truth........as full a picture as it is possible for me to give.
Madeleine Kate McCann
In this truthful account the witness says she and her husband had concerns about the statements they gave to the investigation; namely the quality of the translations and the level of detail.
Despite being supported by a lot of diplomatic and police advisers she tells us they decided to share these concerns with people from a company called Control Risks Group who appeared [apparently uninvited] around 8 days after their daughter's disappearance.
I am not expecting any details of anything, but when someone writes a book with details that seem to make no sense I reserve the right to comment.
-
One of the witnesses wrote a book with a stated aim;
My reason for writing it is simple: to give an account of the truth........as full a picture as it is possible for me to give.
Madeleine Kate McCann
In this truthful account the witness says she and her husband had concerns about the statements they gave to the investigation; namely the quality of the translations and the level of detail.
Despite being supported by a lot of diplomatic and police advisers she tells us they decided to share these concerns with people from a company called Control Risks Group who appeared [apparently uninvited] around 8 days after their daughter's disappearance.
I am not expecting any details of anything, but when someone writes a book with details that seem to make no sense I reserve the right to comment.
Why does voicing concerns to CRG make no sense to you? Why does everyone have to think and behave they way you think they should?
-
&%54%
In her book Kate says;
We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted
to have every detail we could remember registered properly.
This is the reason she gives for making statements to CRG on 13th May.
On 4th May, however they were met at the police station by two members of the British Consular staff. The British Ambassador also arrived from Lisbon. When they left the police station Angela Morado, the proconsul was with them. Waiting in their apartment were John Buck, Bill Henderson, Liz Dow and Andy Bowes. All British Embassy or Consul staff. Then three family liaison officers arrived from LP. During the following days they saw the FLO's every day and were visited again by John Buck and Bill Henderson. Gerry spoke to John Buck and Margaret Beckett;
He pleaded with them both to try to improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled. We needed it to be far better than this, he told them.
[Madeleine]
If the McCanns were unhappy about their statements, why did they not seek advice from this long list of people who were available during that first week? Any one of those listed could have helped them to act on their concerns.
There you go - Gerry spoke to John Buck, nay pleaded with him to try and improve the way the investigation was being handled, witness statements are part of the investigation, you are clearly making something out of nothing as is your wont.
-
When the statements are read back to the witness in English they have the opportunity to correct any incorrect entry or omission, that is the whole point of the process. I must say that when I found myself in a similar position in Spain 13 years ago I did find the initial extradition hearing thoroughly confusing when even the lady translator couldn't translate some of the legal jargon into English. Several months later I wasn't being asked to sign a statement but an extradition Order consenting to the process. That was correctly translated into English at the time but later was retranslated by the COPFS in Edinburgh to give a different meaning to that agreed in Madrid.
I also found out later that the original extradition request was altered during translation after having been signed by the Solicitor General for Scotland. These issues are currently the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court in Scotland, I will be updating the relevant threads in due course.
But this step is missed out isn't it? "When the statements are read back to the witness in English." The statements are already in Portuguese so when they are "read" they can be read in Portuguese or else be translated back in oral English. "they have the opportunity to correct any incorrect entry or omission" but they still don't have a version in English in front of them, just a corrected Portuguese version.
Your own experience shows up the confusion that can occur.
I still think there needed to be the plain English statement taken. That then can be translated to Portuguese. The witness should not be signing off the translated version for they would never be certain it was correctly translated.
-
Why does voicing concerns to CRG make no sense to you? Why does everyone have to think and behave they way you think they should?
You appear to believe they behaved logically. Fine, our views on logical behaviour differ.
-
You appear to believe they behaved logically. Fine, our views on logical behaviour differ.
What should they have done in your view?
-
You appear to believe they behaved logically. Fine, our views on logical behaviour differ.
No, it is you who believes they should have behaved logically, a fine distinction. In any case logic in this instance as far as your concerned is that they address their concerns about the investigation to John Buck. You then kindly provide a cite in which Kate explains that that is exactly what they did do, but somehow you're still convinced "something's not quite right". They can't win with you can they?
-
No, it is you who believes they should have behaved logically, a fine distinction. In any case logic in this instance as far as your concerned is that they address their concerns about the investigation to John Buck. You then kindly provide a cite in which Kate explains that that is exactly what they did do, but somehow you're still convinced "something's not quite right". They can't win with you can they?
Wednesday 8th August it happened. Thursday 9th August;
Later, Angela and Cecilia Edwards, who was taking over from Bill Henderson as British consul,came over to the villa to discuss the recent problems with the media and the way we had been treated by the police.
[Madeleine]
A discussion but no action reported.
Saturday 11th August;
Chief Inspector Sousa adds that Mr and Mrs McCann are not being considered as suspects following newspaper speculation that they were under suspicion.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
-
Wednesday 8th August it happened. Thursday 9th August;
Later, Angela and Cecilia Edwards, who was taking over from Bill Henderson as British consul,came over to the villa to discuss the recent problems with the media and the way we had been treated by the police.
[Madeleine]
A discussion but no action reported.
Saturday 11th August;
Chief Inspector Sousa adds that Mr and Mrs McCann are not being considered as suspects following newspaper speculation that they were under suspicion.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
I don't know what the above post is supposed to prove.
-
Wednesday 8th August it happened. Thursday 9th August;
Later, Angela and Cecilia Edwards, who was taking over from Bill Henderson as British consul,came over to the villa to discuss the recent problems with the media and the way we had been treated by the police.
[Madeleine]
A discussion but no action reported.
Saturday 11th August;
Chief Inspector Sousa adds that Mr and Mrs McCann are not being considered as suspects following newspaper speculation that they were under suspicion.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
Is that extracts from the the "Kate McCann Diary"? I felt this was not needing any translation "Asked if they could ever forgive the person who had taken Madeleine, Mr McCann said: "We don't know who's taken her, we don't know why they've taken her and we don't know what's happened to Madeleine, so it's very difficult to forgive in advance." It doesn't read like a diary entry.
-
Is that extracts from the the "Kate McCann Diary"? I felt this was not needing any translation "Asked if they could ever forgive the person who had taken Madeleine, Mr McCann said: "We don't know who's taken her, we don't know why they've taken her and we don't know what's happened to Madeleine, so it's very difficult to forgive in advance." It doesn't read like a diary entry.
No, if I quote something I give links.
The point was that they had an accusatory interview with the leaders of the investigation on 8th August at which it was made clear they were under suspicion. Three days later Sousa said they weren't under suspicion. The McCanns said;
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
BBC News 12th August
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
Of course they knew after the interview they'd had that the police did suspect them;
I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her.
[Madeleine]
Your quote is from an interview the McCanns gave to the BBC's Heaven and Earth TV show.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
-
No, if I quote something I give links.
The point was that they had an accusatory interview with the leaders of the investigation on 8th August at which it was made clear they were under suspicion. Three days later Sousa said they weren't under suspicion. The McCanns said;
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
BBC News 12th August
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
Of course they knew after the interview they'd had that the police did suspect them;
I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her.
[Madeleine]
Your quote is from an interview the McCanns gave to the BBC's Heaven and Earth TV show.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html
Actually, no.
"Following Mr Sousa's comments, a spokeswoman for the McCann family said: "It is obviously heartening that the police in Portugal have finally confirmed that Kate and Gerry McCann are not suspects following the hurtful and unhelpful comments that have been made this week".
-
Does anyone else find it strange that some people complain about the translations of the PJ files but accept the twice translated version of Amaral's book as truth?
who accepts amarals book as the truth
there is a massive diference and the fact you cant see it shows your bias
amarals book is once translated and we have the original portuguese to compare it to
the mccann statements are twice translated and we do not have the originals
-
who accepts amarals book as the truth
there is a massive diference and the fact you cant see it shows your bias
amarals book is once translated and we have the original portuguese to compare it to
the mccann statements are twice translated and we do not have the originals
In 2007 it would have been normal practice to record the interviews in Portuguese, them being subsequently translated into English for the benefit of the witnesses and the English police. So the Portuguese language versions we have access to are the original verbatim versions surely?
-
In 2007 it would have been normal practice to record the interviews in Portuguese, them being subsequently translated into English for the benefit of the witnesses and the English police. So the Portuguese language versions we have access to are the original verbatim versions surely?
there is no record of what the mcanns actually said,,,there is no verbatim record...im surprised you dont understand that
-
there is no record of what the mcanns actually said,,,there is no verbatim record...im surprised you dont understand that
Since there are no audio/video recordings of the interviews that would appear to be the case. The statements in Portuguese however appear to be the best record of the interviews. There will be translation errors certainly, a fact of life unfortunately.
-
What does a signature imply on the Portuguese versions then?
I can understanding signing your own language version as being true and correct, but one that has been translated at best you could say is that it sounds about right when retranslated back to me.
-
What does a signature imply on the Portuguese versions then?
I can understanding signing your own language version as being true and correct, but one that has been translated at best you could say is that it sounds about right when retranslated back to me.
It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved. That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.
Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England. Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct? Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.
-
Did I read somewhere that the rogatory statements were recorded as a back up to assist the Portuguese when it came to translating the written statement?
-
It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved. That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.
Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England. Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct? Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.
no in the uk the statement is taken in the witnesses first language,,,signed in that language and then translated
-
there is no record of what was read back to them
-
It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved. That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.
Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England. Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct? Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.
I think if a person can't read, it would need a support person to read the statement and make sure the person knew what he was signing. So that is not the person who wrote the statement, but someone independant.
-
It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved. That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.
Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England. Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct? Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.
the statement says I have read and understand this...a person who cannot read could not sign and say they had read it...simple
-
I think if a person can't read, it would need a support person to read the statement and make sure the person knew what he was signing. So that is not the person who wrote the statement, but someone independant.
The translator was independent.
-
Shame the incident didn't occur in England, where PACE applied.
Why is it you folks cannot get your head around - the incident occurred in Portugal - where English laws do not apply?
What is difficult about that?
-
The translator was independent.
independent....robert murat was used as a translator...how professional is that...?
-
Shame the incident didn't occur in England, where PACE applied.
Why is it you folks cannot get your head around - the incident occurred in Portugal - where English laws do not apply?
What is difficult about that?
so what are the guidelines in portugal and did the pj comply with them?
-
Shame the incident didn't occur in England, where PACE applied.
Why is it you folks cannot get your head around - the incident occurred in Portugal - where English laws do not apply?
What is difficult about that?
for those who are having difficulty understanding....the mccanns agreed that the translation given by the intepreter was correct,,...but we have no record of that translation...
-
The translator was independent.
Someone independent of that translator as well.
-
independent....robert murat was used as a translator...how professional is that...?
Robert Murat was independent of the Tapas 9 and the PJ. How independent does he have to be?
As to the manner in how it was decided he should translate and who took that decision, I haven't a clue. Do you?
-
Robert Murat was independent of the Tapas 9 and the PJ. How independent does he have to be?
As to the manner in how it was decided he should translate and who took that decision, I haven't a clue. Do you?
Robert Murat was fine for a casual translator, but he was NOT suitable for legal documents imo.
There must be a "Code of Practice" and "certain qualifications and training" needed for a Legal Translator and it seems that Robert Murat had neither of these.
-
Robert Murat was independent of the Tapas 9 and the PJ. How independent does he have to be?
As to the manner in how it was decided he should translate and who took that decision, I haven't a clue. Do you?
we know that murat who became a suspect was an official ploice translator...so what were the standards of official translators in portugal...very little it seems
-
Robert Murat was fine for a casual translator, but he was NOT suitable for legal documents imo.
There must be a "Code of Practice" and "certain qualifications and training" needed for a Legal Translator and it seems that Robert Murat had neither of these.
it seems there is no code of practice and no standards
-
so what are the guidelines in portugal and did the pj comply with them?
I have no idea what guidelines, standards, procedures or qualifications apply in Portugal.
If you wish to claim that these were breached, it is up to you to cite the guidelines, standards, procedures or qualifications that applied.
-
Shame the incident didn't occur in England, where PACE applied.
Why is it you folks cannot get your head around - the incident occurred in Portugal - where English laws do not apply?
What is difficult about that?
The English/British have a history of believing that their way is the best way. During the days of the British Empire they imposed their way on many others.
Of course the Portuguese weren't among them. Portugal had it's own Empire, the first global Empire in history and the longest lasting modern european colonial empire; almost 600 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire
So Portugal has a proud history and people too. Not a country likely to be enthusiastic about anything they might see as interference in or criticism of their ways of doing things. As evidenced by the reply of Kate's interpreter;
When he asked me if it was the first time I had been to Portugal I said, ‘Yes. Never again!’ The interpreter turned to me and said, ‘Mrs McCann, this could have happened anywhere.’ She was right, of course, and I was a bit ashamed of that remark,
[Madeleine]
-
The English/British have a history of believing that their way is the best way. During the days of the British Empire they imposed their way on many others.
Of course the Portuguese weren't among them. Portugal had it's own Empire, the first global Empire in history and the longest lasting modern european colonial empire; almost 600 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire
So Portugal has a proud history and people too. Not a country likely to be enthusiastic about anything they might see as interference in or criticism of their ways of doing things. As evidenced by the reply of Kate's interpreter;
When he asked me if it was the first time I had been to Portugal I said, ‘Yes. Never again!’ The interpreter turned to me and said, ‘Mrs McCann, this could have happened anywhere.’ (http://[color=blue]She was right, of course, and I was a bit ashamed of that remark,[/color])
[Madeleine]
Well done, Kate.
Showing her honesty and fairness yet again !
-
We have asked several times for someone in Portugal to provide us with what the Portuguese law would ask for. Do they have legislation to follow in Portugal?
-
There was an urgent need for translators so some were used who weren't previously registered but;
Afterwards contact them for their statement of compromise in this Court within a maximum delay of 46 hours, according to article 91, number 2 of the CPP:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm
All in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
-
There was an urgent need for translators so some were used who weren't previously registered but;
Afterwards contact them for their statement of compromise in this Court within a maximum delay of 46 hours, according to article 91, number 2 of the CPP:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm
All in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
Looking at that the Court seems to expect the English statements to be translated to Portuguese by translators that have signed a declaration saying they don't have a conflict of interest in the case.
But from the files we are lead to believe there never were any English versions to begin with. Present us with the English versions of the witness statements please Mr Goncalo Amaral?
There would be two types of translators as far as I can see.
1. Those used in Portugal to produce documents in the file. (Official)
2. Those employed to translate the Portuguese file into English so the McCanns can read it. (Non official)
-
Looking at that the Court seems to expect the English statements to be translated to Portuguese by translators that have signed a declaration saying they don't have a conflict of interest in the case.
But from the files we are lead to believe there never were any English versions to begin with. Present us with the English versions of the witness statements please Mr Goncalo Amaral?
It is the McCanns who have led us to believe there were never any English versions. I haven't found anything in the files describing how statements were taken.
In the rogatory interviews people were allowed by LP, if they wished, to read their previous statements to refresh their memories. This only applied to statements made previously to LP. The T9 were not offered their previous statements, which were all taken in Portugal. Russell O'Brien was allowed to read Jane Tanner's rog. statement for some reason, but that was all.
Several of these previous statements given to LP are not in the released PJ Files. That could be because they contacted the police through Crimestoppers, most of which were held back at the request of the British. Statements made by sex offenders were also withheld at the request of the British.
-
There would be two types of translators as far as I can see.
1. Those used in Portugal to produce documents in the file. (Official)
2. Those employed to translate the Portuguese file into English so the McCanns can read it. (Non official)
There is at least a 3rd type, which is those translators who tried to chunk through the PJ Files as an amateur translator, and upon whose mistakes many a supposition has been based in English.
I am not knocking this type of translator. If your native language is English, it is a lot easier to start in the English versions of statements.
But it helps if you can check with the Portuguese.
-
There is at least a 3rd type, which is those translators who tried to chunk through the PJ Files as an amateur translator, and upon whose mistakes many a supposition has been based in English.
I am not knocking this type of translator. If your native language is English, it is a lot easier to start in the English versions of statements.
But it helps if you can check with the Portuguese.
I would need of an example of what you are talking about. I think it would be true of any translation that there would NOT be only one possible meaning to be got from it. I noticed Pegasus was quite fluent in at least reading Portuguese and giving it an English meaning but I'm not sure if he could go the other way around.
So would those who translate isolated phases be a 4th type of translator?
-
Using Google to translate demonstrates that it's a difficult exercise. Any translator has to strive to reproduce the intended meaning. Word for word translations produce gobble-de-gook.
-
In 2007 it would have been normal practice to record the interviews in Portuguese, them being subsequently translated into English for the benefit of the witnesses and the English police. So the Portuguese language versions we have access to are the original verbatim versions surely?
I am surprised you find this acceptable John. We need to see what the Portuguese law expects of their officers to do when faced with a person who can't speak Portuguese.
-
I would say the procedure in Portugal were as sound as they get and are still being used today. Where a foreigner is being formally interviewed with a view to ultimately signing a statement, the principal document is the Portuguese version signed by the person being interviewed. This must be accompanied by a translated version also signed by the person being interviewed and additionally a signed affidavit by the translator confirming the translation. As long as the foreigner understands what they have signed I see no difficulty. All three documents are legal entities and can be relied on in court.
But isn't this the part that is missing from the the McCann files. All those signed English versions produced at the time of the interview are non existent.
-
"The right to interpretation and translation in Criminal
Proceedings: the situation in Portugal
Sandra Silva ∗"
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
Preliminaries
Conceptualization: interpretation v. translation
Despite the lack of distinction in the Portuguese law, interpretation and translation are
not identical intellectual operations. Translations are written, as opposed to interpretations,
which are oral.
A court interpreter is a ‘language mediator’ or ‘language conduit’ whose presence
allows a person who does not speak or understand Portuguese to meaningfully participate
in the judicial proceedings.10 The proper role of an interpreter is to place the
non-Portuguese-speaker, as closely as is linguistically possible, in the same situation as
the Portuguese speaker in a legal setting.11
A translator uses different skills than a court interpreter. A translator converts a
written document or audiotape recording from the source language (SL) into a written
document in the target language (TL). However, the court interpreter performs in some
IAFL Porto 2012 Proceedings
S. Silva 89
situations as a translator – e.g. when he or she sight translates documents presented
during the hearing.12
With regard specifically to the quality of interpretation and translation, the ECtHR
states that through interpreters and translators the accused or suspected persons must
simply be put in position to understand the case against them and to defend themselves,
in particular by putting their version of events before the court (Hermi v. Italy (2006)).
-
Also https://www.fairtrials.org/arrested-abroad/arrested-in/arrested-in-portuga/ seems to be emphasis on understanding the process in your own language.
-
The Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure guarantees the right to interpretation to any
procedural participant (defendant, accused, suspect, victim, witness, expert, etc.) whose
primary language is not Portuguese and who has a limited ability to read, speak, write
or understand Portuguese.
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
There is, of course, a difference between interpreters and translators;
Despite the lack of distinction in the Portuguese law, interpretation and translation are
not identical intellectual operations. Translations are written, as opposed to interpretations,
which are oral.
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
The interpreters interpreted. They didn't translate.
It takes more skill to interpret than it does to translate because it's immediate and requires in depth knowledge of both languages;
http://www.notatranslators.org/whatsthedifference.aspx
Portuguese law subjects interpreters to an expert’s activity rules (Art. 92, 8, making
applicable Arts. 153 and 162). The interpreter must therefore be ‘sworn’, i.e. he or she
must solemnly promise the judicial authorities (judge or prosecutor) to make a faithful,
accurate and impartial interpretation (Art. 91, 2).
, in Portugal there is neither an official certifcation or registration for
interpreters nor a mechanism to easily assess the quality of the interpreter’s performance.
Because those aspects are totally neglected in the Portuguese legislation, some
courts routinely allow untrained, non-professional bilingual individuals, without any
demonstrated competence, to act as interpreters (including neighborhood grocers).
Despite problems and limitations, one may share an optimistic opinion about the
national interpretation and translation panorama – it may be said that in Portugal the
matter is ‘open to interpretation’, much more than ‘lost in translation’.
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
Once the McCanns were made arguidos they chose their interpreters themselves from a list provided by the Consulate [I assume the British Consulate]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
-
We have asked several times for someone in Portugal to provide us with what the Portuguese law would ask for. Do they have legislation to follow in Portugal?
The rules change all the time as new guidelines as produced.
-
But isn't this the part that is missing from the the McCann files. All those signed English versions produced at the time of the interview are non existent.
Appently so...question is, was there an English language version or did the interpreter simply translate the Portuguese version verbally and the witnesses signed that?
-
The Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure guarantees the right to interpretation to any
procedural participant (defendant, accused, suspect, victim, witness, expert, etc.) whose
primary language is not Portuguese and who has a limited ability to read, speak, write
or understand Portuguese.
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
There is, of course, a difference between interpreters and translators;
Despite the lack of distinction in the Portuguese law, interpretation and translation are
not identical intellectual operations. Translations are written, as opposed to interpretations,
which are oral.
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
The interpreters interpreted. They didn't translate.
It takes more skill to interpret than it does to translate because it's immediate and requires in depth knowledge of both languages;
http://www.notatranslators.org/whatsthedifference.aspx
Portuguese law subjects interpreters to an expert’s activity rules (Art. 92, 8, making
applicable Arts. 153 and 162). The interpreter must therefore be ‘sworn’, i.e. he or she
must solemnly promise the judicial authorities (judge or prosecutor) to make a faithful,
accurate and impartial interpretation (Art. 91, 2).
, in Portugal there is neither an official certifcation or registration for
interpreters nor a mechanism to easily assess the quality of the interpreter’s performance.
Because those aspects are totally neglected in the Portuguese legislation, some
courts routinely allow untrained, non-professional bilingual individuals, without any
demonstrated competence, to act as interpreters (including neighborhood grocers).
Despite problems and limitations, one may share an optimistic opinion about the
national interpretation and translation panorama – it may be said that in Portugal the
matter is ‘open to interpretation’, much more than ‘lost in translation’.
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/13620.pdf
Once the McCanns were made arguidos they chose their interpreters themselves from a list provided by the Consulate [I assume the British Consulate]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Not wishing to be nit picking, because your post has clarified a great deal, what does one call the person who takes the written or typed statement in Portuguese, and reads it back to the witness/arguido in English?
(I can read Portuguese, more or less, but spoken Portuguese is very difficult to understand for me, unless people speak slowly and keep it simple.)
-
Not wishing to be nit picking, because your post has clarified a great deal, what does one call the person who takes the written or typed statement in Portuguese, and reads it back to the witness/arguido in English?
(I can read Portuguese, more or less, but spoken Portuguese is very difficult to understand for me, unless people speak slowly and keep it simple.)
I don't have a cite, but in this case the interpreters seemed to do that. A translator would have produced a written version in English, wouldn't they? Although the Met seem to expect interpreters to do that too.....
I learned German with a teach yourself book before I went to live there. I could spell it, construct sentences and speak it. It only went wrong when they answered; I hadn't a clue! @)(++(*
I have never understood why some English people object to other nationalities speaking in their own language. I have heard complaints about Germans speaking German, Scottish Highlanders speaking Gaelic, the Welsh speaking Welsh and immigrants here speaking in their own languages. Often those complaining have assumed the speakers are talking about them; especially if the speakers laughed. Some people are pretty paranoid imo.
-
Appently so...question is, was there an English language version or did the interpreter simply translate the Portuguese version verbally and the witnesses signed that?
If there is any reason Goncalo Amaral needed to retire is because he messed this part of the case up. If the case ever went to court the only official statements (IMO) would be the rogatory statements, for they start with a native language statement that is translated into Portuguese. These would be the only lawful statements the rest would just be called notes.
-
If there is any reason Goncalo Amaral needed to retire is because he messed this part of the case up. It the case ever went to court the only official statements would be the rogatory statements, for they start with a native language statement that is translated into Portuguese. These would be the only lawful statements the rest would just be called notes.
I think you should read the files before firing off unfounded accusations.
If correct procedures hadn't been followed I'm sure the Public Prosecutor would have had something to say. He monitored the process from the beginning;
Make a copy of the present files, with a copy of everything that has been processed, as quickly as possible and deliver it to the hand of the Public Prosecutor.
7/5/2007 (17 hours)
Signed
Sandra Marques
-
I think you should read the files before firing off unfounded accusations.
If correct procedures hadn't been followed I'm sure the Public Prosecutor would have had something to say. He monitored the process from the beginning;
Make a copy of the present files, with a copy of everything that has been processed, as quickly as possible and deliver it to the hand of the Public Prosecutor.
7/5/2007 (17 hours)
Signed
Sandra Marques
That sounded like a patch up of a botched job but was that instruction ever carried out?
It isn't totally unfounded, for we seem to have established the statements needed to have been taken in English (written in the native language) and thereafter translated.
-
what about where the mccanns were asked to sign that they had READ and UNDERSTOOD the statement when it was in portuguese
-
#secondly we have a paragraph in both the mccanns staents which are almost identical...proof that the interpreter was recording her own account....not the mccanns
-
thirdly we have no way of knowing what other errors are present because we ahve no record of what the mccanns actually said....an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo
-
That sounded like a patch up of a botched job but was that instruction ever carried out?
It isn't totally unfounded, for we seem to have established the statements needed to have been taken in English (written in the native language) and thereafter translated.
It was four days after the child disappeared, two of them weekends. The PJ and GNR worked all weekend, did the prosecutor and his staff?
The point is it wasn't Amaral's call how statements were taken, it was a matter of the Criminal Code, so your attempt to blame him failed. I'm sure the PJ complied with a request from the prosecutor, yes. He was the man in charge.
I find your second statement unclear, we have established what? Cite?
-
thirdly we have no way of knowing what other errors are present because we ahve no record of what the mccanns actually said....an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo
These were statements taken in Portugal by Portuguese policeman in accordance with their Criminal Code. The method of taking them is not down to any policeman or police force, it's laid down in Portuguese rules and regulations which comply with ECHR standards.
You are at liberty to critise anything you like, but it would be nice if you tried to place the blame where it belongs.
-
These were statements taken in Portugal by Portuguese policeman in accordance with their Criminal Code. The method of taking them is not down to any policeman or police force, it's laid down in Portuguese rules and regulations which comply with ECHR standards.
You are at liberty to critise anything you like, but it would be nice if you tried to place the blame where it belongs.
its an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo...you quoted
A translator uses different skills than a court interpreter. A translator converts a
written document or audiotape recording from the source language (SL) into a written
document in the target language
so where is the source document we should all be able to refer to.....the mcccanns signature is on a portuguese document not an english one
-
its an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo
You are at liberty to believe whatever you like, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
-
You are at liberty to believe whatever you like, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
#
you have provided no evidence to the contrary...its a disgraceful piece of policing...who is to blame is another matter
-
It was four days after the child disappeared, two of them weekends. The PJ and GNR worked all weekend, did the prosecutor and his staff?
The point is it wasn't Amaral's call how statements were taken, it was a matter of the Criminal Code, so your attempt to blame him failed. I'm sure the PJ complied with a request from the prosecutor, yes. He was the man in charge.
I find your second statement unclear, we have established what? Cite?
OK whoever made the mistake in taking these statements "the Controller" needed to have been consulted. The way it happened was the most cost effective and easiest for them to understand but was it to the letter of the Law?
It was from my attempt to understand the Portuguese criminal Code as I have detailed in posts #259 - 261 where I reference documents explaining what happens in Portugal. The link to the Portuguese legislation wouldn't load for me.
-
According to gunits post the transalator should be translating a source document in the original language...why was there no source document...a disgraceful piece of policing
-
#
you have provided no evidence to the contrary...its a disgraceful piece of policing...who is to blame is another matter
If the police complied with the rules the blame clearly can't be laid at their door. Did they break the rules in statement taking? If they did then the Public Ministry should have intervened.
For the role of directing the criminal investigation, each of the Public Ministry offices includes a department of investigation and prosecution, composed of attorneys specially dedicated to the investigation of the most serious crimes. For the criminal investigation, the Public Ministry also controls the activity of the Judiciary Police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ministry_(Portugal)
-
#secondly we have a paragraph in both the mccanns staents which are almost identical...proof that the interpreter was recording her own account....not the mccanns
Maybe they said exactly the same thing,did you think of that?
Which paragraph was it?
-
what about where the mccanns were asked to sign that they had READ and UNDERSTOOD the statement when it was in portuguese
I haven't checked the bumph on the bottom of a statement, therefore if you wish to quote 'I have read', as opposed to 'read', is on the bottom, go for it.
AFAIK, non-Portuguese speakers had the statement read to them before it was signed, hence no problem with read. If you think otherwise, kindly provide some evidence.
-
If the police complied with the rules the blame clearly can't be laid at their door. Did they break the rules in statement taking? If they did then the Public Ministry should have intervened.
For the role of directing the criminal investigation, each of the Public Ministry offices includes a department of investigation and prosecution, composed of attorneys specially dedicated to the investigation of the most serious crimes. For the criminal investigation, the Public Ministry also controls the activity of the Judiciary Police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ministry_(Portugal)
Do you think the aspect of cost came into the decision of how the Public Ministry was run? Here is an incident at an English owned resort where just about all the staff are English speaking and the suspects (the hundreds of guests are mainly English) Providing for the thousands of translations was going to run into the millions so maybe the rules were bent a bit in the expectation Madeleine would be found anyway and the case would be history within a week or two.
-
what about where the mccanns were asked to sign that they had READ and UNDERSTOOD the statement when it was in portuguese
Sounds like bog standard text on the signature line
of statements
In an ideal world portugal would employ officers whose mother tongue was english, to await the floods of english speaking witnesses and suspects or else have special stationery made up
Lol
-
thirdly we have no way of knowing what other errors are present because we ahve no record of what the mccanns actually said....an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo
We have no way of knowing if any errors in translation "were" made, you certainly havent come up with one despite arguing about this for weeks
-
Sounds like bog standard text on the signature line
of statements
In an ideal world portugal would employ officers whose mother tongue was english, to await the floods of english speaking witnesses and suspects or else have special stationery made up
Lol
If the translators and interpreters were employed by the PJ there would be questions about their impartiality.
-
We have no way of knowing if any errors in translation "were" made, you certainly havent come up with one despite arguing about this for weeks
There are no two side by side documents to compare to confirm this.
-
If the translators and interpreters were employed by the PJ there would be questions about their impartiality.
What do you mean?
That the portuguese police had on hand a bunch of people willing to pervert the course of justice?
Do elaborate lol
-
What do you mean?
That the portuguese police had on hand a bunch of people willing to pervert the course of justice?
Do elaborate lol
Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ.
-
Do you think the aspect of cost came into the decision of how the Public Ministry was run? Here is an incident at an English owned resort where just about all the staff are English speaking and the suspects (the hundreds of guests are mainly English) Providing for the thousands of translations was going to run into the millions so maybe the rules were bent a bit in the expectation Madeleine would be found anyway and the case would be history within a week or two.
If you can find evidence that the rules weren't complied with or that the Public Ministry bent them then post it. As it stands you seem to be making unsupported slurs.
-
Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ.
Why?
-
I haven't checked the bumph on the bottom of a statement, therefore if you wish to quote 'I have read', as opposed to 'read', is on the bottom, go for it.
AFAIK, non-Portuguese speakers had the statement read to them before it was signed, hence no problem with read. If you think otherwise, kindly provide some evidence.
So you think Gerry read his statement
-
If you can find evidence that the rules weren't complied with or that the Public Ministry bent them then post it. As it stands you seem to be making unsupported slurs.
No, it is not impossible to show this:
1. We have to see what the rules were to start with.
2. All the communications within the Justice Ministry need to be accessed.
3. As I said I heard it said in a documentary a couple of days ago where the words implied the respect of the Portuguese Police were taken into account. Now that could possibly still be locatable.
It would have to be an official inquiry in Portugal. I can't do it from here.
-
Why?
It seems to be the rule of the law regarding taking evidence from a foreigner not able to speak the judicial language.
I am still hoping this will be confirmed by SiL.
-
It seems to be the rule of the law regarding taking evidence from a foreigner not able to speak the judicial language.
I am still hoping this will be confirmed by SiL.
No
My question to your post was why it would be difficult
heres your post for ref!
"Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ."
-
No
My question to your post was why it would be difficult
heres your post for ref!
"Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ."
It would not be difficult to sign a non conflict declaration but it would be questioned in Court. It could never be held up. It would fail so the case would be null and void.
-
So you think Gerry read his statement
No I don't.
I think it was read to him.
Hence read.
Go off to the statement, post the bumph from the bottom, then we can debate the facts. Or don't, as you are wont.
-
It would not be difficult to sign a non conflict declaration but it would be questioned in Court. It could never be held up. It would fail so the case would be null and void.
Why would it be questioned and never held up
Are you saying all translators do what the police tell them to so ie forge translations
Are you sane?
-
Why would it be questioned and never held up
Are you saying all translators do what the police tell them to so ie forge translations
Are you sane?
We are only talking about their conflict of interest declaration. Not their ability to translate and interpret. But unless there is no conflict of interest they can't have that role.
-
We are only talking about their conflict of interest declaration. Not their ability to translate and interpret. But unless there is no conflict of interest they can't have that role.
Oh dear
You said:
Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ.
Why is it a conflict of interest being employed by the pj??? The pj are not people of interest in crimes
Ffs
anyway this is a dud discussion as no one has brought any evidence at all that the translations were wrong, next
-
Please do not libel the NZ police.
Provide evidence or desist.
-
Oh dear
You said:
Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ.
Why is it a conflict of interest being employed by the pj??? The pj are not people of interest in crimes
Ffs
anyway this is a dud discussion as no one has brought any evidence at all that the translations were wrong, next
That is not the point. It is the lack of the English version and the conflict of interest by the interpreters/translators that I'm questioning.
-
That is not the point. It is the lack of the English version and the conflict of interest by the interpreters/translators that I'm questioning.
You still have to describe the conflict of interest between the interpreters and the police, so far, you have failed to do so, despite a few requests, so what is it????
And how and why should there be n english version
-
Please do not libel the NZ police.
Provide evidence or desist.
Evidence? The incident happened in around 1984. Evidence would be long gone but it is definitely etched in my memory.
The thing that made it hard to prove in Court was the fact that I had not asked for a copy of my statement at the time of signing it. So I wonder if in the MM case whether the witnesses were given copies of their statements made at the time?
-
You still have to describe the conflict of interest between the interpreters and the police, so far, you have failed to do so, despite a few requests, so what is it????
We were talking about the hypothetical situation (you raised) of the interpreters and translators employed by the PJ or at least the Public Ministry. Then there is a conflict of interest.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354219#msg354219
-
We were talking about the hypothetical situation (you raised) of the interpreters and translators employed by the PJ or at least the Public Ministry. Then there is a conflict of interest.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354219#msg354219
No we were talking about your assertion that translators cant be without a police vested interest,..a pretty one at that but thats what trolls do so no surprise at all robbity keep on trolling, sorry your life is bare, not anyone elses fault chuck
-
No we were talking about your assertion that translators cant be without a police vested interest,..a pretty one at that but thats what trolls do so no surprise at all robbity keep on trolling, sorry your life is bare, not anyone elses fault chuck
You are wrong again.
-
Were the witnesses were given copies of their statements written out at the time?
-
It is absurd to think there are no errors in the translation on the basis that all translations are likely to contain errors and the PJ do not seem to have any strict control on the quality of the translators. This is why there should have been a signed copy of the statement in English
The fact that some want to defend this flawed system is testament to their bias against the McCanns
-
No I don't.
I think it was read to him.
Hence read.
Go off to the statement, post the bumph from the bottom, then we can debate the facts. Or don't, as you are wont.
I have already posted the declaration
-
If the translators and interpreters were employed by the PJ there would be questions about their impartiality.
They were used by the PJ and paid, like the PJ, by the State. The PJ confirmed that their invoices were correct.
The Metropolitan police in the UK follow exactly the same method. Are their interpreters 'in cahoots' with the police?
You seem to be moving into the realms of fantasy in your attempts to attack the Portuguese Judiciary.
The impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families.
-
We were talking about the hypothetical situation (you raised) of the interpreters and translators employed by the PJ or at least the Public Ministry. Then there is a conflict of interest.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354219#msg354219
Please desist from this line of question. You are making allegations with no backing.
-
They were used by the PJ and paid, like the PJ, by the State. The PJ confirmed that their invoices were correct.
The Metropolitan police in the UK follow exactly the same method. Are their interpreters 'in cahoots' with the police?
You seem to be moving into the realms of fantasy in your attempts to attack the Portuguese Judiciary.
The impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families.
That is a bit harsh ("moving into the realms of fantasy"). I am not trying to go that far but I have worked in an environment where conflict of interest (COI) is taken seriously, so I know what it should deliver and it won't only be "the impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families". Even though that would be important as well.
If we could get to see the COI declaration we would see the types of concerns there are. How could we get one of those? Even one that is used in the UK would give us a clue.
They would not get paid directly from the PJ investigation. (I'd be surprised if they do.)
The policy is to prevent any claims of "cahoots" from either side.
-
Please desist from this line of question. You are making allegations with no backing.
I am not making any allegations. Mercury posed a ridiculous situation and we were working through that purely hypothetical situation that would never occur.
-
I am not making any allegations. Mercury posed a ridiculous situation and we were working through that purely hypothetical situation that would never occur.
So stop. If it has no relevance to the real world and causes issues on the forum take it elsewhere.
-
G-unit can we get hold of a COI declaration used by UK translators?
-
It is absurd to think there are no errors in the translation on the basis that all translations are likely to contain errors and the PJ do not seem to have any strict control on the quality of the translators. This is why there should have been a signed copy of the statement in English
The fact that some want to defend this flawed system is testament to their bias against the McCanns
The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made.
If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. If you ask to see other's statements the police can decide whether to release them or not. Unlike in Portugal the case files are never released so can never be checked. When the McCanns tried to force Leicestershire Police in court to release evidence the answer was a very loud and clear refusal.
Every Judicial System could be improved I would imagine. Those who attack the system in Portugal could be accused of demonstrating their bias in favour of the McCanns. Perhaps they should remember that a concerted campaign against the Portuguese Judicial system began on 3rd May 2007 and has continued ever since.
The UK police may have disappointed some because no criticism of the Portuguese investigation has ever been made by them. Mark Harrison praised their initial search efforts. Leicestershire Police worked in harmony with the PJ, as did the Met. The review made no comment on any failings either. Jim Gamble, in his 'scoping exercise' criticised...competing UK police forces for hampering the Portuguese investigation. Neither the McCanns nor those who support them have attacked UK police for their interference.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html
If the Met close Operation Grange no files will be released to anyone. No-one will see what evidence Operation Grange followed or what new evidence was gathered. UK police may communicate with the media during an investigation but they never allow them to examine their files like the Portuguese do.
-
G-unit can we get hold of a COI declaration used by UK translators?
Is there such a thing?
-
Is there such a thing?
I think there will be. It might have a different name. I'll spend time later and see if I can find it.
-
That is a bit harsh ("moving into the realms of fantasy"). I am not trying to go that far but I have worked in an environment where conflict of interest (COI) is taken seriously, so I know what it should deliver and it won't only be "the impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families". Even though that would be important as well.
If we could get to see the COI declaration we would see the types of concerns there are. How could we get one of those? Even one that is used in the UK would give us a clue.
They would not get paid directly from the PJ investigation. (I'd be surprised if they do.)
The policy is to prevent any claims of "cahoots" from either side.
You enter the realms of fantasy when you post something without providing supporting evidence. I'm sure you don't do this with any ulterior motives but others do commonly use it as a ploy;
A poster makes an unsupported statement. Another poster disagrees. The second poster is challenged to prove the first poster wrong. The second poster must then find evidence to refute the unsupported post. The first poster can then sit back and relax while someone else does the research. They have also often successfully diverted the discussion from it's course.
-
Are you familiar with this? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a03
Interpreter as a Witness in Court
If a suspect has been interviewed through an interpreter and there is an issue about what was said, evidence will have to be given by the interpreter. Evidence from a police officer about what the accused has said in interview, as related to the police officer by the interpreter, is hearsay. The only valid witness as to what the defendant said is the interpreter. (Archbold 4-36). It is therefore important that the interpreter is a person who is suitably qualified and impartial.
If an interpreter is required to give evidence, he or she should be given an opportunity to confirm the accuracy of any record of an interview at which the interpreter was present. This may include being given the opportunity to listen to the taped interview, or in the case of a deaf person, view the video taped interview.
The CPS is responsible for the payment of expenses of an interpreter who attends court to give evidence about what took place at the defendant's interview.
In the UK it seems that the provision of the interpreters are up to the defence lawyer. But what happens in just the general course of inquiries where there is no need for defence lawyers?
The principle would be the same the interpreter would have to be "a person who is suitably qualified and impartial".
-
You enter the realms of fantasy when you post something without providing supporting evidence. I'm sure you don't do this with any ulterior motives but others do commonly use it as a ploy;
A poster makes an unsupported statement. Another poster disagrees. The second poster is challenged to prove the first poster wrong. The second poster must then find evidence to refute the unsupported post. The first poster can then sit back and relax while someone else does the research. They have also often successfully diverted the discussion from it's course.
There's no point providing supporting evidence to you, because when you are provided with it, you just ignore it and carry on pretending that what you said (if it has been contradicted and proven wrong) is right anyway ....
-
You enter the realms of fantasy when you post something without providing supporting evidence. I'm sure you don't do this with any ulterior motives but others do commonly use it as a ploy;
A poster makes an unsupported statement. Another poster disagrees. The second poster is challenged to prove the first poster wrong. The second poster must then find evidence to refute the unsupported post. The first poster can then sit back and relax while someone else does the research. They have also often successfully diverted the discussion from it's course.
If first poster is asked to support their post often that request is just bluffed away, "I'm busy at the moment", or "read the file". I'll try not to fall into the same trap in future. It is also a matter of explaining one's argument and where the other party keeps changing their stance, it can be rather tricky, for I might feel I have argued my case adequately but the forum still doesn't see it that way.
-
There's no point providing supporting evidence to you, because when you are provided with it, you just ignore it and carry on pretending that what you said (if it has been contradicted and proven wrong) is right anyway ....
Who are you addressing Ferryman? We are all allowed to feel we are right.
-
Who are you addressing Ferryman? We are all allowed to feel we are right.
Sorry, I was addressing G-Unit.
In fact, I responded to G-Unit's post (as I had intended).
-
The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made.
If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. ..... snip ...
"The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made." OK the system complies but was the system followed in this case? That is the question I would like you to answer.
"If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. "
I was told in NZ that you are entitled to ask for a copy of your own statement, so what you say there really surprises me.
-
Sorry, I was addressing G-Unit.
In fact, I responded to G-Unit's post (as I had intended).
Thanks for clarifying that.
-
In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05
Interpreter at the Police Station
The police will arrange for an interpreter when interviewing suspects or witnesses in the course of their investigation who have difficulty in speaking and understanding English. The Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) give guidance to the police. (Archbold 4-35 4-38) and in particular Code C 13. However, it should be noted that the Codes are currently under revision.
Any witness statement taken from a person who has difficulty in speaking or understanding English should be recorded in the foreign language and signed by the witness. It should include the declaration prescribed in section 9(2)(b) Criminal Justice Act 1967 or section 102(2)(b) Magistrate's Court Act 1980. Witness statements for the purpose of section 5A(3)(a) and 5B of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, must be the statement of the witness and not a translation of what was said by the interpreter See, R v Raynor Times Law Reports 19 September 2000.
So witness statements from the English in Portugal should have been done with an interpreter present. The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.
None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present. But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.
-
In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal should have been done with an interpreter present. The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.
None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present. But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.
What is the correct basis?
Are you saying it was done on an incorrect basis?
-
What is the correct basis?
Are you saying it was done on an incorrect basis?
I'm not saying anything ATM, but it is something further to look at. We need to know what the PJ have to consider when choosing an interpreter, and only then will we make a judgement.
-
"The system in Portugal complies with the requirements of the ECHR in respect of the right to a fair trial. If people don't speak Portuguese adequate arrangements are made." OK the system complies but was the system followed in this case? That is the question I would like you to answer.
"If you make a witness statement in the UK you won't get a copy of your statement, it's the property of the police. "
I was told in NZ that you are entitled to ask for a copy of your own statement, so what you say there really surprises me.
I expect I could answer if I trawled the net looking for something telling me what the rules are and if they contain anything relating to statements taken from foreigners. Instead I quoted something which told me that Portugal meets ECHR standards. I also quoted something showing that the Public Prosecutor is in charge of the PJ and of the investigation. I'm content to assume that he ensured things were done 'by the book'.
A witness is not entitled as of right to see his or her statement or be sent a copy of it before the day of the trial.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/victims_and_witnesses_supplying_witnesses_with_copies_of_their_statements/
-
I'm not saying anything ATM, but it is something further to look at. We need to know what the PJ have to consider when choosing an interpreter, and only then will we make a judgement.
Why? How does it advance the search for Madeleine ?
-
Why? How does it advance the search for Madeleine ?
it might not help immediately, but it will help in the long run to take Goncalo's lawyers off the McCann's case and maybe the search fund will get a boost from the Portuguese.
-
it might not help immediately, but it will help in the long run to take Goncalo's lawyers off the McCann's case and maybe the search fund will get a boost from the Portuguese.
Why should the Portuguese boost the fund.
Surely you believe people should be held responsible for their own actions.
So why shouldn't the Mccanns pay for any 'search' themselves.
The taxpayers of this country have already involuntarily contributed, via Cameron's instructions, courtesy of R. Brooks.
-
In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal should have been done with an interpreter present. The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.
None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present. But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.
You can't use an example relating to the UK to suggest that Portugal is not meeting ECHR standards. The UK may have higher or different standards, but Portugal meets the standard required, end of. People may not like tha way they do things, but they are doing nothing wrong.
UK interpreters are strictly regulated. They must be members of the IOL and they must pass exams to be considered for the positions of police and court interpreters. No such requirements exist in Portugal. That doesn't mean Portugal is wrong, it means it's different, just as the UK and New Zealand are different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Linguists
Here's some advice relating to Spain;
The report can be made in two ways:
· Written (in Spanish) - delivering a document with the statement you want to report along with any other evidence.
· Spoken - which is the traditional way to do it, telling the events and addressing questions asked by the police officer
The majority of police stations in Spain do not have interpreters, so you will need one if you do not speak Spanish.
http://www.abacoadvisers.com/spain_explained/spanish-law/news/making-police-report-denuncia-spain#
Portugal;
The submission of evidence is acceptable only in the Portuguese language. There is no right to have the
evidence translated into your language.
https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/PORTUGAL-Mar-2016-new-Printer-Friendly.pdf
-
Why should the Portuguese boost the fund.
Surely you believe people should be held responsible for their own actions.
So why shouldn't the Mccanns pay for any 'search' themselves.
The taxpayers of this country have already involuntarily contributed, via Cameron's instructions, courtesy of R. Brooks.
Portuguese = GA
he is held responsible for his actions.
The McCann fund will get a boost and they will have the money required.
And the UKJustice forum will solve the case. That would be a good one!
-
You can't use an example relating to the UK to suggest that Portugal is not meeting ECHR standards. The UK may have higher or different standards, but Portugal meets the standard required, end of. People may not like tha way they do things, but they are doing nothing wrong.
UK interpreters are strictly regulated. They must be members of the IOL and they must pass exams to be considered for the positions of police and court interpreters. No such requirements exist in Portugal. That doesn't mean Portugal is wrong, it means it's different, just as the UK and New Zealand are different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Linguists
Here's some advice relating to Spain;
The report can be made in two ways:
· Written (in Spanish) - delivering a document with the statement you want to report along with any other evidence.
· Spoken - which is the traditional way to do it, telling the events and addressing questions asked by the police officer
The majority of police stations in Spain do not have interpreters, so you will need one if you do not speak Spanish.
http://www.abacoadvisers.com/spain_explained/spanish-law/news/making-police-report-denuncia-spain#
Portugal;
The submission of evidence is acceptable only in the Portuguese language. There is no right to have the
evidence translated into your language.
https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/PORTUGAL-Mar-2016-new-Printer-Friendly.pdf
Until we know we are using the UK law as an example. A lot of countries follow Westminster legal precedence.
That Portuguese Fair Trials document still didn't cover the taking of witness statements.
-
it might not help immediately, but it will help in the long run to take Goncalo's lawyers off the McCann's case and maybe the search fund will get a boost from the Portuguese.
Tut. Amaral's lawyers are employed to defend him against the McCann's various accusations.
Whatever occurs in connection with other matters has nothing to do with their role. I would imagine they are libel lawyers, like the McCann's lawyer.
You are assuming that the Portuguese turned against the McCanns following the publication of his book etc. Others have suggested that UK people did the same. That is a fallacy. People disbelieved the McCanns long before Amaral published his book and broadcast his DVD. If he is discredited it will not affect people's opinions of the McCanns at all in my opinion.
-
Portuguese = GA
he is held responsible for his actions.
The McCann fund will get a boost and they will have the money required.
And the UKJustice forum will solve the case. That would be a good one!
One might get the impression you have a thing for the Mccanns, especially Mrs. Mccann.
Perhaps you agree what James O'Brien said about her. @)(++(* @)(++(*
PS. In case you haven't realized by now, Amaral is just a citizen of Portugal, he is not Portugal. *&*%£
-
I have already posted the declaration
You have posted it in English, or rather, what you think it says in English. Given that you are complaining about the quality of translation, that is rather rich.
Are you going to post the Portuguese version or not?
-
It is absurd to think there are no errors in the translation on the basis that all translations are likely to contain errors and the PJ do not seem to have any strict control on the quality of the translators. This is why there should have been a signed copy of the statement in English
The fact that some want to defend this flawed system is testament to their bias against the McCanns
The fact that some find the system suitable for purpose, when no significant error has yet been quoted, attests to the ability of those people to evaluate the facts and reach a conclusion based on them.
To claim that there is a flawed system, without evidence of such flaws, is a flight of fancy.
To claim that not finding the system flawed is evidence of bias against the McCanns is arrant nonsense.
-
Evidence? The incident happened in around 1984. Evidence would be long gone but it is definitely etched in my memory.
The thing that made it hard to prove in Court was the fact that I had not asked for a copy of my statement at the time of signing it. So I wonder if in the MM case whether the witnesses were given copies of their statements made at the time?
Please do not quote an incident in 1984 as being relevant to 2007. 23 years apart is far too long.
PACE 1984 was brought in to fix major issues in the way witnesses were treated, and I have no doubt there has been other relevant legislation since.
I neither know, nor care, about the relevant legislation in 2007 in Portugal, in the UK, or in NZ.
But if you are going to blacken the image of NZ police, provide evidence of an event contemporaneous with 2007. Evidence means the event and the laws or regulations that were breached.
-
In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal should have been done with an interpreter present. The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.
None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present. But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis.
If you wish to claim that an equivalent of PACE 1984 exists in Portugal, find it and post it.
There is no reason to infer commonality of law between England and Portugal other than that those emanating from European Law. If you think there is any European law requiring an equivalent of PACE, find it and post it.
The incident occurred in Portugal. The relevant legal system is that of Portugal. What happens in Canada, South Africa, Greece, Germany etc. has no relevance.
-
Until we know we are using the UK law as an example. A lot of countries follow Westminster legal precedence.
That Portuguese Fair Trials document still didn't cover the taking of witness statements.
The fruitlessness of using one country's procedures to judge those of another country has been demonstrated by the difference between the UK and New Zealand, which is heavily based on English Law.
That document said evidence [statements ?] are admissible only in Portuguese. I expect that's because any case arising would be heard in that language because it would be heard in Portugal where they speak Portuguese.
It also said there is no right to a translation of the evidence [statements?]
Seems fairly clear to me.
If anyone is ever tried in connection with this case the trial will take place in Portugal, in Portuguese, and any defendant who doesn't speak the language will be entitled to an interpreter in court. How will they check the interpreter is doing that correctly? Answer; they won't be able to.
-
The system used was poor by any standards. The mccanns were told to sign confirming they had read and understood the statements when they had not....twice translated non verbatim statemnets WILL contain errors....we do not have anyway of checking for these errors...an absolute pigs ear of an operation
-
The system used was poor by any standards. The mccanns were told to sign confirming they had read and understood the statements when they had not....twice translated non verbatim statemnets WILL contain errors....we do not have anyway of checking for these errors...an absolute pigs ear of an operation
No they weren't.
If you think so, you can't tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite.
On the other hand, if you can tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite, you know that you are spouting nonsense.
And we do have means of checking some of the statements, none of which come close to indicating the PJ made a pig's ear of the translations.
The normal forum approach when you are impugning an individual, or a group of individuals, is to provide evidence supporting your allegation. To date, on this topic, you have been happy to PJ-bash, without a shred of evidence to support your assertions.
-
No they weren't.
If you think so, you can't tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite.
On the other hand, if you can tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite, you know that you are spouting nonsense.
And we do have means of checking some of the statements, none of which come close to indicating the PJ made a pig's ear of the translations.
The normal forum approach when you are impugning an individual, or a group of individuals, is to provide evidence supporting your allegation. To date, on this topic, you have been happy to PJ-bash, without a shred of evidence to support your assertions.
as you have sais you have not read the declaration at the bottom of the statement I think you should stop contradicting me. I have posted the declaration earlier in the thread. the fact that the pj as a whole completely misunderstood the forensic evidence and the dog alerts...is proof they made a pigs ear of the whole thing
-
No they weren't.
If you think so, you can't tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite.
On the other hand, if you can tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite, you know that you are spouting nonsense.
And we do have means of checking some of the statements, none of which come close to indicating the PJ made a pig's ear of the translations.
The normal forum approach when you are impugning an individual, or a group of individuals, is to provide evidence supporting your allegation. To date, on this topic, you have been happy to PJ-bash, without a shred of evidence to support your assertions.
from the statement..
after having read the deed she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter.
she didn't read it did she.....
the wording is exactly the same as those given by portuguese speakers so don't try to twist it...it wont wash
-
If you wish to claim that an equivalent of PACE 1984 exists in Portugal, find it and post it.
There is no reason to infer commonality of law between England and Portugal other than that those emanating from European Law. If you think there is any European law requiring an equivalent of PACE, find it and post it.
The incident occurred in Portugal. The relevant legal system is that of Portugal. What happens in Canada, South Africa, Greece, Germany etc. has no relevance.
I understand you are in Portugal, can you find the relevant legislation and post it in Portuguese on the forum please.
-
as you have sais you have not read the declaration at the bottom of the statement I think you should stop contradicting me. I have posted the declaration earlier in the thread. the fact that the pj as a whole completely misunderstood the forensic evidence and the dog alerts...is proof they made a pigs ear of the whole thing
Dear oh dear.
When I said I had not read the wording at the bottom of each statement, I had not read the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, which is what we were debating.
But you should have been able to work out that when I was talking about the difference between past participles and the preterite, that I have indeed checked what the bottom of the statement says in Portuguese.
You have repeatedly ignored a request to bring the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, merely parroting something you claim is an accurate translation. I have no idea where your 'translation' from, so the less said about that the better.
But for the sake of the forum, here is how the relevant sentence starts off, which anyone can check. Lido o auto ...
O auto when used in a legal sense means legal proceedings or legal documents. Here the best translation is probably 'the statement'.
Lido is the past participle of ler, which is the verb 'to read'. The past participle is formed by chopping of the 'er' at the end of ler to leave just 'l', and tacking on ido, to give 'lido'.
English uses context to distinguish read (rhymes with reed) and read (rhymes with red). Portuguese does not. Lido means read (rhymes with red).
A past participle does not have any form of pronoun built into it, therefore there is no suggestion that the person signing the document had read the document.
Lido o auto = The document read (then the sentence goes on to say the contents were confirmed and the statement signed).
You have nothing to support the idea that any non-Portuguese speaker was asked to read a document written in Portuguese, while an interpreter sat idly by. The idea is arrant nonsense.
-
Dear oh dear.
When I said I had not read the wording at the bottom of each statement, I had not read the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, which is what we were debating.
But you should have been able to work out that when I was talking about the difference between past participles and the preterite, that I have indeed checked what the bottom of the statement says in Portuguese.
You have repeatedly ignored a request to bring the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, merely parroting something you claim is an accurate translation. I have no idea where your 'translation' from, so the less said about that the better.
But for the sake of the forum, here is how the relevant sentence starts off, which anyone can check. Lido o auto ...
O auto when used in a legal sense means legal proceedings or legal documents. Here the best translation is probably 'the statement'.
Lido is the past participle of ler, which is the verb 'to read'. The past participle is formed by chopping of the 'er' at the end of ler to leave just 'l', and tacking on ido, to give 'lido'.
English uses context to distinguish read (rhymes with reed) and read (rhymes with red). Portuguese does not. Lido means read (rhymes with red).
A past participle does not have any form of pronoun built into it, therefore there is no suggestion that the person signing the document had read the document.
Lido o auto = The document read (then the sentence goes on to say the contents were confirmed and the statement signed).
You have nothing to support the idea that any non-Portuguese speaker was asked to read a document written in Portuguese, while an interpreter sat idly by. The idea is arrant nonsense.
i have already posted this....my translation is from teh pjmccann files....
the declaration at the bottom of the statements for both the mccanns and native portuguese speakers is the same
ie that the signee has read and ratified the statements. The mccanns could not have read the statements...
-
its an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo...you quoted
A translator uses different skills than a court interpreter. A translator converts a
written document or audiotape recording from the source language (SL) into a written
document in the target language
so where is the source document we should all be able to refer to.....the mcccanns signature is on a portuguese document not an english one
And rightly so too. If there was to be a trial then it was the Portuguese documents which were the principal ones and not any English translation.
-
And rightly so too. If there was to be a trial then it was the Portuguese documents which were the principal ones and not any English translation.
they are inadmissable as evidence against the mccanns as they were not arguidos when taken
-
I haven't checked the bumph on the bottom of a statement, therefore if you wish to quote 'I have read', as opposed to 'read', is on the bottom, go for it.
AFAIK, non-Portuguese speakers had the statement read to them before it was signed, hence no problem with read. If you think otherwise, kindly provide some evidence.
That is exactly what would have happened, the interpreter would have verbally relayed the Portuguese language statement or interview comments back to the witnesses in English so they knew what they were signing.
-
from the statement..
after having read the deed she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter.
she didn't read it did she.....
the wording is exactly the same as those given by portuguese speakers so don't try to twist it...it wont wash
Which Portuguese speakers? If those were fluent Portuguese speakers then their English is poor quality. Portuguese has clear ways of saying 'after' and there is not a hint of that. Portuguese expresses 'having' by the present participle of ter or haver, and neither appears in the sentence.
From memory, much the remainder of the sentence was in the preterite, which is why I raised past participle and preterite. That would make your translation of the end of the sentence in error, but does anyone give a fig?
The start of the sentence is still "The statement read ..."
The McCanns never complained of this part of the process.
-
Which Portuguese speakers? If those were fluent Portuguese speakers then their English is poor quality. Portuguese has clear ways of saying 'after' and there is not a hint of that. Portuguese expresses 'having' by the present participle of ter or haver, and neither appears in the sentence.
From memory, much the remainder of the sentence was in the preterite, which is why I raised past participle and preterite. That would make your translation of the end of the sentence in error, but does anyone give a fig?
The start of the sentence is still "The statement read ..."
The McCanns never complained of this part of the process.
You criticise my translation but it isnt my translation....its the translation from the pj mccann files....those who have translated most of the files.
The mccanns signed the same declaration as the portuguese witnesses.......the declaration should have been diferrent as teh mccanns could not read the statement...
-
Which Portuguese speakers? If those were fluent Portuguese speakers then their English is poor quality. Portuguese has clear ways of saying 'after' and there is not a hint of that. Portuguese expresses 'having' by the present participle of ter or haver, and neither appears in the sentence.
From memory, much the remainder of the sentence was in the preterite, which is why I raised past participle and preterite. That would make your translation of the end of the sentence in error, but does anyone give a fig?
The start of the sentence is still "The statement read ..."
The McCanns never complained of this part of the process.
on the mccann files the translation reads...
reads,ratifies and signs
do you still want to claim that you are right and both these translators are wrong..
-
You criticise my translation but it isnt my translation....its the translation from the pj mccann files....those who have translated most of the files.
The mccanns signed the same declaration as the portuguese witnesses.......the declaration should have been diferrent as teh mccanns could not read the statement...
'Your translation' is 'the translation you have claimed is correct', not 'the translation you personally have made of the original Portuguese' because it is blindingly obvious that either 1) you have not read the original Portuguese, and/or 2) you cannot translate Portuguese into English.
Is there something about a past participle in Portuguese that you still don't understand after my lengthy explanation?
-
on the mccann files the translation reads...
reads,ratifies and signs
do you still want to claim that you are right and both these translators are wrong..
'Lido' is 'read' (rhymes with red) and is a past participle. I see you are now quoting a completely different translation of the stuff at the bottom.
There is no ways that 'lido' (read) can be translated accurately as reads. Lido is past tense. Read (rhymes with reed) is current tense.
Ler, to read, is irregular, and the correct word for (he/she/it) reads is 'lê', which of course looks absolutely nothing like 'lido'.
-
'Your translation' is 'the translation you have claimed is correct', not 'the translation you personally have made of the original Portuguese' because it is blindingly obvious that either 1) you have not read the original Portuguese, and/or 2) you cannot translate Portuguese into English.
Is there something about a past participle in Portuguese that you still don't understand after my lengthy explanation?
its seems the person who does not understand is you..none of the translations are mine.
one is from the mccann files and the other is from the pjmccann files...Im sure everyone else can see apart from you
These are the translations everyone on every forum is using...feel free to tell them they are all wrong and only you are right
-
'Lido' is 'read' (rhymes with red) and is a past participle. I see you are now quoting a completely different translation of the stuff at the bottom.
There is no ways that 'lido' (read) can be translated accurately as reads. Lido is past tense. Read (rhymes with reed) is current tense.
Ler, to read, is irregular, and the correct word for (he/she/it) reads is 'lê', which of course looks absolutely nothing like 'lido'.
Rather than argue from this standpoint, if you are in Portugal, can you find the relevant legislation for giving evidence and post it in Portuguese on the forum please and then we will attempt to translate it
-
'Lido' is 'read' (rhymes with red) and is a past participle. I see you are now quoting a completely different translation of the stuff at the bottom.
There is no ways that 'lido' (read) can be translated accurately as reads. Lido is past tense. Read (rhymes with reed) is current tense.
Ler, to read, is irregular, and the correct word for (he/she/it) reads is 'lê', which of course looks absolutely nothing like 'lido'.
have you managed to understand yet that the translation s are not mine
-
'Lido' is 'read' (rhymes with red) and is a past participle. I see you are now quoting a completely different translation of the stuff at the bottom.
There is no ways that 'lido' (read) can be translated accurately as reads. Lido is past tense. Read (rhymes with reed) is current tense.
Ler, to read, is irregular, and the correct word for (he/she/it) reads is 'lê', which of course looks absolutely nothing like 'lido'.
perhaps ypu shoud inform the mccann files and the pj mccann files that their translations are wrong
-
Rather than argue from this standpoint, if you are in Portugal, can you find the relevant legislation for giving evidence and post it in Portuguese on the forum please and then we will attempt to translate it
The topic of relevant Portuguese legislation does not interest me, given that I do not think any significant errors occurred in the way the statements were handled.
Portuguese media had access to the statements when the files were released. There does not appear to be any criticism of a supposed pig's ear being made of the statements.
English media had access to the statements when the files were released. There does not appear to be any mention of this pig's ear.
-
The topic of relevant Portuguese legislation does not interest me, given that I do not think any significant errors occurred in the way the statements were handled.
Portuguese media had access to the statements when the files were released. There does not appear to be any criticism of a supposed pig's ear being made of the statements.
English media had access to the statements when the files were released. There does not appear to be any mention of this pig's ear.
The litmus test is to see the legislation Goncalo or whoever was working to. If that says the statements were supposed to have been in English from the English speaking persons then he did it wrong. I'm not saying there was factual errors in the statements produced by the method they used but with the method they used there is no way to check that for we don't have the English version to compare it to.
-
The topic of relevant Portuguese legislation does not interest me, given that I do not think any significant errors occurred in the way the statements were handled.
Portuguese media had access to the statements when the files were released. There does not appear to be any criticism of a supposed pig's ear being made of the statements.
English media had access to the statements when the files were released. There does not appear to be any mention of this pig's ear.
the Telegraph....thats quite a serious paper if you havent heard of it....ran a story saying portuguese detectives felt that errrors in translation may have been responsible for inconsistencies in the mccann statements.
-
In the article at the top of that list http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-errors-in-translation-520692 shows up the mistake in a big way
As part of a root-and-branch review of the six-month probe, police are now checking for faulty translations of all the statements given in the days after the four-year-old vanished.
What are they comparing them to? They need the original English version and unless secretly they were making an English version in the form of notes they would have nothing to compare the Portuguese version to.
-
In the article at the top of that list http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccann-errors-in-translation-520692 shows up the mistake in a big way What are they comparing them to? They need the original English version and unless secretly they were making an English version in the form of notes they would have nothing to compare the Portuguese version to.
could you post alink to the telegraph article
#
-
mccanns errors in translation...
could you google and ppost links to show how little sil actually kmows about the case
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
Madeleine McCann: Possible translation errors
By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz2:16PM GMT 12 Nov 2007
Inconsistencies in the statements given by the McCanns and the group of friends who were dining with them at the time of Madeleine's disappearance may have been caused by errors in translation, it emerged today.
Madeleine investigation: Full coverage
Madeleine McCann apartment: first picture
Portuguese detectives investigating the case of the missing four-year-old have admitted that they are reassessing the original witness statements to look for inaccuracies in their translation.
Once again it isn't explained how they can do that without the original signed English versions. Surely they didn't knock up forgeries of these and forge the signatures of the witnesses! That would be the real bombshell if they did. They must have something to compare but it was not released. To me that is very suspicious.
-
The question I would raise about the translations, certainly of the initial statements is - once Murat was constituted arguido, why were the statements not taken again and translated by someone who wasn't a suspect in the case? Surely any translation by a key suspect of other witnesses' statement would potentially not be worth the paper it was written on?
-
The question I would raise about the translations, certainly of the initial statements is - once Murat was constituted arguido, why were the statements not taken again and translated by someone who wasn't a suspect in the case? Surely any translation by a key suspect of other witnesses' statement would potentially not be worth the paper it was written on?
(while I don't think Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance) that's a good point!
-
(while I don't think Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance) that's a good point!
of course its a good point
-
(while I don't think Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance) that's a good point!
We all know that now, but at the time ie: May 2007 he was the only arguido in the case and therefore his translations could, potentially, have been tainted, biased, whatever. Surely best practice would have been to diisregard them completely and start again?
-
We all know that now, but at the time ie: May 2007 he was the only arguido in the case and therefore his translations could, potentially, have been tainted, biased, whatever. Surely best practice would have been to diisregard them completely and start again?
YES!!!!!
-
The question I would raise about the translations, certainly of the initial statements is - once Murat was constituted arguido, why were the statements not taken again and translated by someone who wasn't a suspect in the case? Surely any translation by a key suspect of other witnesses' statement would potentially not be worth the paper it was written on?
You actually need to go several steps back and see why the only person who was capable of giving a perfect translation was removed from the case without any evidence at all. Silvia Batista seems to be the first to complain about Murat (with a half truth), she is also a translator, who had a conflict of interest issue for she worked for OC (she may have even been a part owner through her husband). To me this is the crucial aspect of this case for she did not turn up to the arguido meeting with Murat. By that stage the damage was done and she backs right out of her accusation against him in the end.
-
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap4
"Matthew Oldfield's interview on 04 May 2007
The interview begins at 11h30 on 04/05/07. It is made in the presence of inspector Patricia D.
As with previous statements, the interviewee having no command of the Portuguese language, an interpreter was requested.
It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
On the subject, the interviewee says:
It is of his own free will and of his own accord that he adds his statements in the context of the present proceedings".............<<< snip.
One supposes, were one so minded, trawling through the files would reveal all those statements where Robert Murat was the official police interpreter as the interpreter's identity is recorded.
-
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap4
"Matthew Oldfield's interview on 04 May 2007
The interview begins at 11h30 on 04/05/07. It is made in the presence of inspector Patricia D.
As with previous statements, the interviewee having no command of the Portuguese language, an interpreter was requested.
It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.
On the subject, the interviewee says:
It is of his own free will and of his own accord that he adds his statements in the context of the present proceedings".............<<< snip.
One supposes, were one so minded, trawling through the files would reveal all those statements where Robert Murat was the official police interpreter as the interpreter's identity is recorded.
Interesting for that sounds like an English version is present also: "After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.
In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation."
Only makes sense if there was an English version to translate.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
Madeleine McCann: Possible translation errors
Once again it isn't explained how they can do that without the original signed English versions. Surely they didn't knock up forgeries of these and forge the signatures of the witnesses! That would be the real bombshell if they did. They must have something to compare but it was not released. To me that is very suspicious.
Interesting for other reasons, but here is a quote from the report.
"The translation of the statements during Kate and Gerry's interviews took a long time and it made the process far longer than it would otherwise have been."
8((()*/
-
Interesting for other reasons, but here is a quote from the report.
"The translation of the statements during Kate and Gerry's interviews took a long time and it made the process far longer than it would otherwise have been."
8((()*/
But can you read into that that there were written English statements present? For it seems it could be either verbal or written:
"The translation of the verbal statements during Kate and Gerry's interviews took a long time and it made the process far longer than it would otherwise have been."
"The translation of the written statements during Kate and Gerry's interviews took a long time and it made the process far longer than it would otherwise have been."
IMO when we get the legislation the statements should have been written ones that were translated.
-
when they say "and it made the process far longer than it would otherwise have been" is that a cost consideration? Is the cost of the translators being questioned? What is the "otherwise" method they were comparing it to?
-
I wonder if the first paragraph in the Translations page reflects the Portuguese law? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm It has that legal tone to it.
"With all formal witness statements, the interview is read over and its contents explained. After having shown their agreement with their statements, the interviewee confirms and signs as accurate the content of the document that follows, conjointly with the "sworn" interpreter, where one is used. This is normal procedure in all formal interviews. In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation."
From reading that there is an English version maybe side by side with the interpretation, otherwise how is anyone going to show "agreement with their statements"? Each document has to be co-signed with the interpreter.
"In co-signing, the interpreter commits themself legally concerning the accuracy of their translation." So there would have to be the two versions kept otherwise that could never be checked.
OK if that is what they were supposed to do was it actually done that way. We will only know if we see these co-signed documents.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354455#msg354455
Silvia Batista is mentioned on page 244 of Madeleine by Kate McCann. Also pages 99 and 235. "A lady called Silvia, who worked at Ocean Club, had arrived to help out with translation. We learned later that she was the Maintenance and Services Manager." on pages 235 Kate writes "At our next meeting, Neves was to change tack and tell us that one of the Ocean Club Managers, Silvia Batista (the lady who had translated for us on 3 May), had also reported seeing Robert Murat outside our apartment that night."
But later she does not back that up at the arguido confrontational meeting mentioned on page 244.
So basically she sets Robert Murat up and then does not back it up at the meeting, but in the meantime RM has had a terrible time being the first arguido named in the MM Missing case. I'm not sure if she is formally used as a translator for the process of taking statements.
Silvia makes a big mistake in this interview to with a Portuguese Journalhttp://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Mundo/0,,MUL87825-5602,00.html She makes out the babysitting service is for free.
"G1 - How does this service at the resort? Batista - The guest must ask the phone and the girls (English girls) go to the room to care for children . It is free and is included in the holiday package, as well as daytime recreations. But the McCanns did not ask for this service. G1 - Why not ask? Batista - I think they were unconcerned, found that there was no problem."
-
Silvia Batista has a major influence on the direction of the investigation:http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/silvia-batista-33-statements-silvia.html
She is instrumental in downgrading the Tanner sighting! At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette.
This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child.
The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.
She doesn’t know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.
-
'Lido' is 'read' (rhymes with red) and is a past participle. I see you are now quoting a completely different translation of the stuff at the bottom.
There is no ways that 'lido' (read) can be translated accurately as reads. Lido is past tense. Read (rhymes with reed) is current tense.
Ler, to read, is irregular, and the correct word for (he/she/it) reads is 'lê', which of course looks absolutely nothing like 'lido'.
I agree SiL. The correct translation seems to be, 'After having read the deed, she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter'. The 'reads' translation is incorrect and imo very sloppy.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569143/Madeleine-McCann-Possible-translation-errors.html
Madeleine McCann: Possible translation errors
Once again it isn't explained how they can do that without the original signed English versions. Surely they didn't knock up forgeries of these and forge the signatures of the witnesses! That would be the real bombshell if they did. They must have something to compare but it was not released. To me that is very suspicious.
Which part of there wasn't any English versions don't you understand Robbie? The interviews were recorded in Portuguese and when concluded the interpreter would read them back to the English witnesses in English. The witnesses would then sign the PORTUGUESE version document.
It isn't rocket science you know!! Does that answer your question as to why there are no English language versions of these documents in the files?
-
Silvia Batista seems to get special attention from Paulo Rebelo? Is this some sort of joke?
Silvia Batista the most reliable of witnesses. Part 1
http://paulorebelononeglect.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/silvia-batista-most-reliable-of.html
To me it is beginning to smack of corruption! Is this possible that an OC club manager gets a very good interpreter made an arguido, down plays Jane Tanner's sighting, turns against the McCanns and gets special praise from the head of the investigation Paulo Rebelo?
-
We all know that now, but at the time ie: May 2007 he was the only arguido in the case and therefore his translations could, potentially, have been tainted, biased, whatever. Surely best practice would have been to diisregard them completely and start again?
I have some sympathy with your point but the interviews were documented in Portuguese so I see no issue.
-
Which part of there wasn't any English versions don't you understand Robbie? The interviews were recorded in Portuguese and when concluded the interpreter would read them back to the English witnesses in English. The witnesses would then sign the PORTUGUESE version document.
It isn't rocket science you know!! Does that answer your question as to why there are no English language versions of these documents in the files?
" The interviews were recorded in Portuguese and when concluded the interpreter would read them back to the English witnesses in English. The witnesses would then sign the PORTUGUESE version document."
Where does that come from again?
I have just looked at Jane Tanner's statement from the 4th and you are right. It seems to be directly into Portuguese. I'm shocked!
-
Silvia Batista seems to get special attention from Paulo Rebelo? Is this some sort of joke?http://paulorebelononeglect.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/silvia-batista-most-reliable-of.html
To me it is beginning to smack of corruption! Is this possible that an OC club manager gets a very good interpreter made an arguido, down plays Jane Tanner's sighting, turns against the McCanns and gets special praise from the head of the investigation Paulo Rebelo?
She said she thought she saw him there at OC the night Maddie disappeared, nothing more. Please don't read things into her comments which simply aren't there Robbie.
-
Where does that come from again?
I wrote it after researching the facts. Night now.
-
She said she thought she saw him there at OC the night Maddie disappeared, nothing more. Please don't read things into her comments which simply aren't there Robbie.
That was a quote from Kate's book on pages 235 Kate writes "At our next meeting, Neves was to change tack and tell us that one of the Ocean Club Managers, Silvia Batista (the lady who had translated for us on 3 May), had also reported seeing Robert Murat outside our apartment that night."
-
so both english speaking and portuguse speakers signed the same declaration yet one will have read the statements and one will have had the statements read to them.....
both the mccann files and the pjmccann files tranalte this as that the signee has read the statement but sil maintains ther ptranslation is wrong. i would dsay its sil who is wrong
i have been given further penalty points for referring to the operation as a pigs ear. I feel this is an abuse of a mods position and will continue to use the word pigs ear
-
Which part of there wasn't any English versions don't you understand Robbie? The interviews were recorded in Portuguese and when concluded the interpreter would read them back to the English witnesses in English. The witnesses would then sign the PORTUGUESE version document.
It isn't rocket science you know!! Does that answer your question as to why there are no English language versions of these documents in the files?
So far I see only Jane Tanner's 10/04/2007 statement has an English translation attached to it (but it doesn't seem to be a true statement but a type of translation of the Portuguese statement.)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
-
The question I would raise about the translations, certainly of the initial statements is - once Murat was constituted arguido, why were the statements not taken again and translated by someone who wasn't a suspect in the case? Surely any translation by a key suspect of other witnesses' statement would potentially not be worth the paper it was written on?
So which statements did Murat translate?
I presume you would expect us to be wary of anything provided by someone designated Arguido in the case?
-
So which statements did Murat translate?
I presume you would expect us to be wary of anything provided by someone designated Arguido in the case?
I think you should be wary of any translation provided by an unqualified translator
-
So which statements did Murat translate?
I presume you would expect us to be wary of anything provided by someone designated Arguido in the case?
I'm wondering if it would be wiser to be wary of those who contributed to Robert Murat becoming an arguido! For in the end I don't see they found anything that would disqualify him from acting as a translator. Was the whole thing a setup?
-
I have some sympathy with your point but the interviews were documented in Portuguese so I see no issue.
When the McCanns and their friends spoke their statements who wrote them down and in what language?
-
So which statements did Murat translate?
I presume you would expect us to be wary of anything provided by someone designated Arguido in the case?
Well look at it this way - if Gerry had done the translations I'm sure you'd have had plenty to say about it over the years.
-
Well look at it this way - if Gerry had done the translations I'm sure you'd have had plenty to say about it over the years.
I think alien abduction is easier to handle than that one!
-
In the UK and I suspect a similar law will apply in Portugal since they are both in the EU this applies:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/#a05So witness statements from the English in Portugal should have been done with an interpreter present. The statement should have been in English and the English version signed by the witness.
None of this appears to have been followed except for the interpreters being present. (http://[color=blue] But were the interpreters even selected on the correct basis. [/color])
Please note that both my earlier post and Shinings have been wiped. Why ? Both posts were valid to this thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of days ago I pointed out that some of the translators / interpreters were members of the 3A's forum. (This forum was obscenely against The Mccanns, and was backing the PJ in an extreme and acidic way towards The Mccanns.)
Shining challenged me to prove that some of the translators were on the 3A's forum.
After some time searching, I have found the evidence. Just two examples below.
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Translated by Anna Esse / Albym
34 to 41 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann 2007.05.04
TRANSLATION BY INES/ALBYM
Processos Vol I Pages 34 to 39
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Translated by Ines / Albym
I have only given two examples, but rather important ones.
I actually quite liked Ines and Albym, generally they seemed very involved in trying to sleuth out what actually happened, rather than abusing The Mccanns ... rather like our Pegasus
But Anna Esse was another kettle of fish. Really acidic and extremely against The Mccanns to the nth degree IMO.
Could such a person be unbiased?
Is she from the Essene Jewish sect?
Was it Ok that people so set against The Mccanns and so for The PJ should have been used for translation / interpretation? Were they officially bona-fide interpreters or just folk with a linguistic ability? Some biased.
-
Please note that both my earlier post and Shinings have been wiped. Why ? Both posts were valid to this thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of days ago I pointed out that some of the translators / interpreters were members of the 3A's forum. (This forum was obscenely against The Mccanns, and was backing the PJ in an extreme and acidic way towards The Mccanns.)
Shining challenged me to prove that some of the translators were on the 3A's forum.
After some time searching, I have found the evidence. Just two examples below.
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Translated by Anna Esse / Albym
34 to 41 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann 2007.05.04
TRANSLATION BY INES/ALBYM
Processos Vol I Pages 34 to 39
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Translated by Ines / Albym
I have only given two examples, but rather important ones.
I actually quite liked Ines and Albym, generally they seemed very involved in trying to sleuth out what actually happened, rather than abusing The Mccanns ... rather like our Pegasus
But Anna Esse was another kettle of fish. Really acidic and extremely against The Mccanns to the nth degree IMO.
Could such a person be unbiased?
Is she from the Essene Jewish sect?
Was it Ok that people so set against The Mccanns and so for The PJ should have been used for translation / interpretation? Were they officially bona-fide interpreters or just folk with a linguistic ability? Some biased.
So nothing to do with official translators then?
-
the Telegraph....thats quite a serious paper if you havent heard of it....ran a story saying portuguese detectives felt that errrors in translation may have been responsible for inconsistencies in the mccann statements.
The fact that they later pushed so strongly for the reconstruction suggests that they did not conclude that the inconsistencies arose due to translation errors.
-
I'm wondering if it would be wiser to be wary of those who contributed to Robert Murat becoming an arguido! For in the end I don't see they found anything that would disqualify him from acting as a translator. Was the whole thing a setup?
- You know that man?
- Yes, he presented himself to the GNR on Friday morning and offered his services as an interpreter. He is of English origin but speaks good Portuguese. He's called Robert Murat.
As the law demands, all foreign people interviewed by the police must have the benefit of an interpreter. In this investigation, the considerable number of interviews we had to conduct in record time forced us to call on the services of volunteers.
- And this guy, you checked him out? No criminal record or trouble with the law?
- No, no, it's all OK, but I didn't know he lived here. It's true that his house is on the route taken by the abductor.
- Stay here, carry on being friendly with him; I'm going to Portimão to see what we've got on him: we've got to find out more about this guy.
I immediately telephone the team to alert them. The Director of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Faro has to be involved in a meeting the same morning, where we will discuss the case of Robert Murat. We decide to request the latter's help again in order not to lose sight of him. We must act with the utmost speed, because Madeleine could be in one of the houses he has access to. The investigators continue to check the information we have about him.
Goncalo Amaral ... Chapter 7
I think Robert Murat drew the attention of the Policia Judiciaria to himself by behaviour which is outlined in the PJ files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Based on that information there would have been a dereliction of duty if he hadn't been fully investigated. That meant that to preserve his constitutional rights he had to be constituted arguido ~ as we have seen that didn't make him guilty ~ it allowed him to be interviewed 'under caution' with a lawyer present.
Even at that, his interview sessions were no walk in the park.
What you have to remember, is that we have the benefit of hindsight, whereas the people involved were doing it all in real time and were contributing what they experienced without knowing what information others were giving.
-
so both english speaking and portuguse speakers signed the same declaration yet one will have read the statements and one will have had the statements read to them.....
both the mccann files and the pjmccann files tranalte this as that the signee has read the statement but sil maintains ther ptranslation is wrong. i would dsay its sil who is wrong
If you can get anyone translating who cannot tell the difference between 'read' - past tense - and 'reads' - present tense - I suggest you get yourself a better translator.
Even Google translate, which is far from perfect, manages to translate 'lido' as 'read' (past tense), as anyone one on the forum can verify for themselves.
If you choose to rely on inaccurate translations when an accurate translation, complete with a comprehensive explanation, has been provided for you, go for it. Your choices reflect on you, no one else.
-
Please note that both my earlier post and Shinings have been wiped. Why ? Both posts were valid to this thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of days ago I pointed out that some of the translators / interpreters were members of the 3A's forum. (This forum was obscenely against The Mccanns, and was backing the PJ in an extreme and acidic way towards The Mccanns.)
Shining challenged me to prove that some of the translators were on the 3A's forum.
After some time searching, I have found the evidence. Just two examples below.
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Translated by Anna Esse / Albym
34 to 41 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann 2007.05.04
TRANSLATION BY INES/ALBYM
Processos Vol I Pages 34 to 39
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Translated by Ines / Albym
I have only given two examples, but rather important ones.
I actually quite liked Ines and Albym, generally they seemed very involved in trying to sleuth out what actually happened, rather than abusing The Mccanns ... rather like our Pegasus
But Anna Esse was another kettle of fish. Really acidic and extremely against The Mccanns to the nth degree IMO.
Could such a person be unbiased?
Is she from the Essene Jewish sect?
Was it Ok that people so set against The Mccanns and so for The PJ should have been used for translation / interpretation? Were they officially bona-fide interpreters or just folk with a linguistic ability? Some biased.
All the translators used by McCannFiles are listed in here:
Right at the top.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap4
The interpreters used by the police are recorded in each witness statement.
So in the case of Kate Healy's 04/052007 14:20 statement who is being accused of jiggery pokery and by whom. We'll skate gently around the why.
Ines, Anna Esse or Natália Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida or anyone else?
-
All the translators used by McCannFiles are listed in here:
Right at the top.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap4
The interpreters used by the police are recorded in each witness statement.
So in the case of Kate Healy's 04/052007 14:20 statement who is being accused of jiggery pokery and by whom. We'll skate gently around the why.
Ines, Anna Esse or Natália Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida or anyone else?
Natália Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida is the interpreter in Portugal.
-
Natália Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida is the interpreter in Portugal.
Considering she was the the interpreter used by the Portuguese police for the interview with Kate McCann on 04/05/2007 at 14:20 I do not find that much of a revelation.
-
Please note that both my earlier post and Shinings have been wiped. Why ? Both posts were valid to this thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of days ago I pointed out that some of the translators / interpreters were members of the 3A's forum. (This forum was obscenely against The Mccanns, and was backing the PJ in an extreme and acidic way towards The Mccanns.)
Shining challenged me to prove that some of the translators were on the 3A's forum.
After some time searching, I have found the evidence. Just two examples below.
58 to 65 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy 2007.05.04
Processo 01 Pages 58 to 65
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm Translated by Anna Esse / Albym
34 to 41 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann 2007.05.04
TRANSLATION BY INES/ALBYM
Processos Vol I Pages 34 to 39
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
Translated by Ines / Albym
I have only given two examples, but rather important ones.
I actually quite liked Ines and Albym, generally they seemed very involved in trying to sleuth out what actually happened, rather than abusing The Mccanns ... rather like our Pegasus
But Anna Esse was another kettle of fish. Really acidic and extremely against The Mccanns to the nth degree IMO.
Could such a person be unbiased?
Is she from the Essene Jewish sect?
Was it Ok that people so set against The Mccanns and so for The PJ should have been used for translation / interpretation? Were they officially bona-fide interpreters or just folk with a linguistic ability? Some biased.
I think you're mixing up the sworn interpreters used by the PJ with the volunteers who translated the released files into English. Apologies if that's what you were saying.
-
I think you're mixing up the sworn interpreters used by the PJ with the volunteers who translated the released files into English. Apologies if that's what you were saying.
That is quite possible Gunit.
Unfortunately my original post has been wiped along with SILs challenge
But even if that were the case, incorrectly translated statements are capable of being a source of much disinformation and mischief making on the internet.
I have hard copy evidence of a translation of a processos that has two versions, but I cannot share because only one stands now. Neither version is the same as the original PT version which I also have a copy of.
Who thinks it OK to translate incorrectly, then change translations?
-
That is quite possible Gunit.
Unfortunately my original post has been wiped along with SILs challenge
But even if that were the case, incorrectly translated statements are capable of being a source of much disinformation and mischief making on the internet.
I have hard copy evidence of a translation of a processos that has two versions, but I cannot share because only one stands now. Neither version is the same as the original PT version which I also have a copy of.
Who thinks it OK to translate incorrectly, then change translations?
I wasn't challenging you, Sadie. I was interested in whether someone from that particular forum claimed to have done official translations, which would mean inside knowledge.
As to why non-official translations change, that is easy. Our amateur translator (AT) is slogging through dozens of statements, translating for no charge but involving huge time and effort. AT hits the Aoife Smith statement, tries his/her best, and the end result is it looks like Aoife said Smithman was going at a fast pace, when in fact her statement says nothing of the kind.
Once this becomes a bone of contention, it is necessary to back and think very carefully about the translation. And to revise it if a revision is required.
-
What does it mean if someone has made a statement or translated a statement under the term "compromise of honour"?
-
I wasn't challenging you, Sadie. I was interested in whether someone from that particular forum claimed to have done official translations, which would mean inside knowledge.
As to why non-official translations change, that is easy. Our amateur translator (AT) is slogging through dozens of statements, translating for no charge but involving huge time and effort. AT hits the Aoife Smith statement, tries his/her best, and the end result is it looks like Aoife said Smithman was going at a fast pace, when in fact her statement says nothing of the kind.
Once this becomes a bone of contention, it is necessary to back and think very carefully about the translation. And to revise it if a revision is required.
Trouble is, SIL, that most of us dont speak PT.
I was able to identify three changes, even to the original PT Processos because the changes involved a number and at times a question mark. All three were different on a potentially very important point.
Had PT words been involved, I would have been unable to notice the differences.
Btw, can you please tell me how I can find the original 3A's forum again? Thanks in advance.
-
What does it mean if someone has made a statement or translated a statement under the term "compromise of honour"?
Could that be a conflict of interest. I'd be interested in knowing any with that term in them.
-
Could that be a conflict of interest. I'd be interested in knowing any with that term in them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm ...... at the bottom
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm#4271 - Murat
And from the libel trial....
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id306.html
PJGA Press Note released to the media on 10 February 2010 PJGA
PJGA leaflet Portuguese language
PJGA leaflet English language
Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms
Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral
www.pjga.blogspot.com
*snipped*
The citizens of Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral would like to state as follows:
1. In the book "The Truth of the Lie", Gonçalo Amaral wrote that he and the rest of the Portuguese and English investigators concluded that Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of Madeleine's cadaver.
2 . The Portuguese investigators have already given evidence in this court, and they declared, under a compromise of honour, that Kate Healy and Gerald McCann really are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver.
-
In the context it was used in the last sentence it would have to been "sworn under oath".
The Portuguese investigators have already given evidence in this court, and they declared, under a compromise of honour, that Kate Healy and Gerald McCann really are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver.
The Portuguese investigators have already given evidence in this court, and they declared ,"sworn under oath" , that Kate Healy and Gerald McCann really are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm ...... at the bottom
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/interpreters.htm#4271 - Murat
And from the libel trial....
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id306.html
PJGA Press Note released to the media on 10 February 2010 PJGA
PJGA leaflet Portuguese language
PJGA leaflet English language
Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms
Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral
www.pjga.blogspot.com
*snipped*
The citizens of Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral would like to state as follows:
1. In the book "The Truth of the Lie", Gonçalo Amaral wrote that he and the rest of the Portuguese and English investigators concluded that Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of Madeleine's cadaver.
2 . The Portuguese investigators have already given evidence in this court, and they declared, under a compromise of honour, that Kate Healy and Gerald McCann really are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver.
REPORT
on the Free Movement of Workers
in Portugal in 2011-2012
1.3. Art. 8(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/CE
The Union citizens whose permanence in the national territory is longer than three months
must register with the Town Hall of the residence area within thirty days after a period of
time of three months from the date of entry in the national territory. A registration certificate
is issued immediately, stating the name and the address of the person registering and the date
of registration. For the registration certificate to be issued it is required a valid identity card
or passport, as well as a declaration under compromise of honour that the applicant works on
the Portuguese territory [Article 14(1) to (5) of Law 37/2006].
www.ru.nl/publish/pages/608499/portugal_2011-12_def.pdf
That is an interesting one, Misty. I think it means taking an oath or under oath or an affirmation. The word compromise certainly means something different for us.
-
REPORT
on the Free Movement of Workers
in Portugal in 2011-2012
1.3. Art. 8(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/CE
The Union citizens whose permanence in the national territory is longer than three months
must register with the Town Hall of the residence area within thirty days after a period of
time of three months from the date of entry in the national territory. A registration certificate
is issued immediately, stating the name and the address of the person registering and the date
of registration. For the registration certificate to be issued it is required a valid identity card
or passport, as well as a declaration under compromise of honour that the applicant works on
the Portuguese territory [Article 14(1) to (5) of Law 37/2006].
www.ru.nl/publish/pages/608499/portugal_2011-12_def.pdf
That is an interesting one, Misty. I think it means taking an oath or under oath or an affirmation. The word compromise certainly means something different for us.
Thanks for that. I was curious about the meaning as it's a strange turn of phrase from an English aspect, especially in the context of the M Hall statement.
-
Thanks for that. I was curious about the meaning as it's a strange turn of phrase from an English aspect, especially in the context of the M Hall statement.
I think M Hall's statement is an important one.
She is an entirely independent witness, who reported a nearly 'invisible' person being able to lurk in the environs of apartment 5A. Seen by no-one either coming or going and only being spotted by chance.
Why it should have been designated 'compromise of honour ' I have no idea.
She made the statement ... why should she not at the same time have been asked to affirm it like everyone else seems to have been, if that is indeed what the phrase means.
-
I think M Hall's statement is an important one.
She is an entirely independent witness, who reported a nearly 'invisible' person being able to lurk in the environs of apartment 5A. Seen by no-one either coming or going and only being spotted by chance.
Why it should have been designated 'compromise of honour ' I have no idea.
She made the statement ... why should she not at the same time have been asked to affirm it like everyone else seems to have been, if that is indeed what the phrase means.
Interesting how an apparently unrelated Portuguese file page is located bang smack in the middle of Hall's statement pages!!
-
Interesting how an apparently unrelated Portuguese file page is located bang smack in the middle of Hall's statement pages!!
I did notice that, and I did notice the names of the individuals referred to in those pages ... but I could not understand what was being said.
-
It is interesting she she did not report the event at the time.
It is interesting that the geezer knew just where to walk and stand such that:
a) he could arrive at his chosen location.
b) lurk in his chosen location
both without activating the PIR.
Maybe he was the leccyteccy who set it up when it was installed?
-
Interesting how an apparently unrelated Portuguese file page is located bang smack in the middle of Hall's statement pages!!
Are you talking about the file page (3rd down) that mentions Sergei Malinka but is not part of the English translation of Hall's statement?
Why would Hall's statement start off with the words "PJ Document Very Confidential" which don't appear on the paper work attached?
Why would this incident be given that status of being "very confidential"?
-
Are you talking about the file page (3rd down) that mentions Sergei Malinka but is not part of the English translation of Hall's statement?
3440. No mention of SM.
-
3440. No mention of SM.
it seems to be talking about Murat. It would be interesting to have Shining (or anyone else who is able to translate this document) to go through and give us a quick translation of that document.
-
it seems to be talking about Murat. It would be interesting to have Shining (or anyone else who is able to translate this document) to go through and give us a quick translation of that document.
There is a translation somewhere, I'll look for it.
ETA http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic5655.html (links to relevant pages in the files)
-
Margaret Hall's original statement is in Spanish. The reason being that spoke to Metodo 3 by telephone, not the PJ. They were given it at a meeting with M3 and Kennedy;
During the course of this meeting, the director of METODO 3 gave us a small book (attached), with information relative to the disappearance of the minor. This information, as we were told, was received via telephone and that they had already opened a line in Spain, specifically to receive and deal with information.
In this book, written in Spanish, we can analyse three pieces of information:
1. In the first case, we observed that there was report of facts which occurred in August/September of 2006, and which appears to us somewhat extemporaneous, as it cannot now be related to the material under investigation.
2. In the second point, we should remember that the computers of Sergey Malinka were searched and that nothing of suspicion was found there or related to paedophilia.
3. In that which concerns the third point, we are currently carrying out diligences with the intent to confirm or disprove the related information.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
-
Margaret Hall's original statement is in Spanish. The reason being that spoke to Metodo 3 by telephone, not the PJ. They were given it at a meeting with M3 and Kennedy;
During the course of this meeting, the director of METODO 3 gave us a small book (attached), with information relative to the disappearance of the minor. This information, as we were told, was received via telephone and that they had already opened a line in Spain, specifically to receive and deal with information.
In this book, written in Spanish, we can analyse three pieces of information:
1. In the first case, we observed that there was report of facts which occurred in August/September of 2006, and which appears to us somewhat extemporaneous, as it cannot now be related to the material under investigation.
2. In the second point, we should remember that the computers of Sergey Malinka were searched and that nothing of suspicion was found there or related to paedophilia.
3. In that which concerns the third point, we are currently carrying out diligences with the intent to confirm or disprove the related information.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
I would say only No 1 would be applicable to the incident Margaret Hall experienced and reported to Metodo3.
1. In the first case, we observed that there was report of facts which occurred in August/September of 2006, and which appears to us somewhat extemporaneous, as it cannot now be related to the material under investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
I think the translation is misleading.
I wondered why Inspector Joao Carlos was so emphatic in dismissing what could very well have been information pertinent to Madeleine's case. "quem se possa, por agora," translating as "without it being possible , for now," alters the meaning somewhat.
-
Margaret Hall's original statement is in Spanish. The reason being that spoke to Metodo 3 by telephone, not the PJ. They were given it at a meeting with M3 and Kennedy;
During the course of this meeting, the director of METODO 3 gave us a small book (attached), with information relative to the disappearance of the minor. This information, as we were told, was received via telephone and that they had already opened a line in Spain, specifically to receive and deal with information.
In this book, written in Spanish, we can analyse three pieces of information:
1. In the first case, we observed that there was report of facts which occurred in August/September of 2006, and which appears to us somewhat extemporaneous, as it cannot now be related to the material under investigation.
2. In the second point, we should remember that the computers of Sergey Malinka were searched and that nothing of suspicion was found there or related to paedophilia.
3. In that which concerns the third point, we are currently carrying out diligences with the intent to confirm or disprove the related information.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
Spot the anomolies in the translation.
*snipped
A witness called Margaret Hall who worked at the OC was located and tells us that six months before the incident with Maddie there could have been an abduction attempt from the same apartment that was let to the McCann family. On the 1st November 2007 she makes a statement in full honour that refers to the following:
Margaret Hall was employed by the Mark Warner resort in P da L for six months from October 2006 as a baby sitter for the clients.
She says that in August/September 2006 she was working as a babysitter in the same apartment that the girl was abducted from. She confirms that the events occurred on a Thursday night. Thursday nights were known as the "tennis nights" and on that night the girl's parents were out playing tennis.
-
Spot the anomolies in the translation.
*snipped
A witness called Margaret Hall who worked at the OC was located and tells us that six months before the incident with Maddie there could have been an abduction attempt from the same apartment that was let to the McCann family. On the 1st November 2007 she makes a statement in full honour that refers to the following:
Margaret Hall was employed by the Mark Warner resort in P da L for six months from October 2006 as a baby sitter for the clients.
She says that in August/September 2006 she was working as a babysitter in the same apartment that the girl was abducted from. She confirms that the events occurred on a Thursday night. Thursday nights were known as the "tennis nights" and on that night the girl's parents were out playing tennis.
Well spotted misty.
So the incident occurred before she was employed as a baby sitter
and,
Another Thursday night ....
Wonder what nights the other break ins happened?
Surely this was a mega clue for Amaral, but seems he ignored it like it seems he ignored other break ins at OC. Now am I remembering correctly, weren't some of these via the front door?
-
Well spotted misty.
So the incident occurred before she was employed as a baby sitter
and,
Another Thursday night ....
Wonder what nights the other break ins happened?
Surely this was a mega clue for Amaral, but seems he ignored it like it seems he ignored other break ins at OC. Now am I remembering correctly, weren't some of these via the front door?
Also, Mark Warner hadn't bought into OC in 2006!!
Added to that - the child's parents were playing tennis at 0030hrs?
-
Also, Mark Warner hadn't bought into OC in 2006!!
Added to that - the child's parents were playing tennis at 0030hrs?
Gawd, I am getting too old. I never noticed them. Well spotted.
Who translated it? Have you seen the original?
Just shows how little we should rely on the translations, doesn't it?
Gotta go now. Nigh night all
-
Gawd, I am getting too old. I never noticed them. Well spotted.
Who translated it? Have you seen the original?
Just shows how little we should rely on the translations, doesn't it?
Gotta go now. Nigh night all
As GUnit said, the info was given to Spanish Metado 3 by telephone. So, possibly English to Spanish to Portuguese & back to English.
The Daily Mirror did contact her & get an efit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
-
As GUnit said, the info was given to Spanish Metado 3 by telephone. So, possibly English to Spanish to Portuguese & back to English.
The Daily Mirror did contact her & get an efit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
The only ones who seem to have acted appropriately when given this witness statement appear to be the much maligned Metodo 3.
**snip
After hearing nothing from the police in the UK, she went straight to Metodo 3, the private investigators working for Kate and Gerry.
They passed her information to Portuguese police, who dismissed it as being "out-dated".
Her information only came to light after Portuguese officers released all their files relating to Maddy earlier this month.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
It is interesting that Margaret Hall mentions a PIR being activated when the man moved position. The only other mention of an outside light was made by a previous occupant of 5A.
**snip
We arrived on Saturday and this night noticed that the blinds on the patio side door which gave way to the pool zone did not close.
It appeared that someone had lifted them too much and the mechanism did not dislodge in order to shut them (page1).
We reported this abnormality to the reception that same night.
We reported this immediately because we found that the apartment could be at risk if it was not possible to close the door blinds.
The apartment was also vulnerable for the fact that the entryway light (side of the street) was hanging and did not function. This made the entryway very dark. It was off from the street with a small parking zone between the street and the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JUNE-HUGHES.htm
I found this statement interesting ...
- I think June assumed that the blinds were a security feature, as I think most Brits would.
- She appeared to know that they had been "lifted" inappropriately ~ perhaps as a result of the maintenance team explaining the proper way to open and close them
- She makes no mention of the outside light being repaired despite her recognition of the security issue of the cover of darkness this gave to the recessed wooden doorway
I don't think there was any problem with translation issues as far as the statement goes.
I think the main problem with it is that the statement was not taken until 29 April 2008 ~ a year after the events described in it had occurred. How is it possible to build any sort of picture of the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance if no-one bothers to ...
(a) interview people actually resident in the building at the time of Madeleine's disappearance
(b) interview previous recent occupants
-
As GUnit said, the info was given to Spanish Metado 3 by telephone. So, possibly English to Spanish to Portuguese & back to English.
The Daily Mirror did contact her & get an efit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
So UK police somewhere along the line didn't pass her first statement on? It would be interesting to know why.
-
So UK police somewhere along the line didn't pass her first statement on? It would be interesting to know why.
Hmmm ... we know for certain it wasn't?
-
Hmmm ... we know for certain it wasn't?
We don't even know for certain a statement was taken, do we? If it was there are several possibilities;
Bolton police didn't pass it to LP.
LP got it but didn't pass it to the PJ
The PJ got it and didn't file it.
The PJ got it and filed it, but it was held back because it was a Crimestoppers contact.
-
We don't even know for certain a statement was taken, do we? If it was there are several possibilities;
Bolton police didn't pass it to LP.
LP got it but didn't pass it to the PJ
The PJ got it and didn't file it.
The PJ got it and filed it, but it was held back because it was a Crimestoppers contact.
Indeed.
It would have been worth bearing those options in mind before leaping to conclusions as you did when you said "So UK police somewhere along the line didn't pass her first statement on? It would be interesting to know why."
-
It seems miss hall like so many others went to the papers (for their own reasons) instead of the police at the time
Disgusting type of people
It seems pj got wind and got a statement eventually
-
It seems miss hall like so many others went to the papers (for their own reasons) instead of the police at the time
Disgusting type of people
It seems pj got wind and got a statement eventually
Margaret Hall's witness statement became known to the press only as a result of Madeleine's case being archived and the files put out on general release by Levy in contravention of Portuguese law.
**snip
Her information only came to light after Portuguese officers released all their files relating to Maddy earlier this month. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
-
Margaret Hall's witness statement became known to the press only as a result of Madeleine's case being archived and the files put out on general release by Levy in contravention of Portuguese law.
**snip
Her information only came to light after Portuguese officers released all their files relating to Maddy earlier this month. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
Were Levy's translated files on the internet 16 days after they were released? Or did the paper get the files, have them translated and combed through within that timescale? Even if they did, as far as I can see there's no personal details in the files for this person.
Sorry, I'm more inclined to think the newspaper was given this story than that it found it all by itself.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3140.0
Clarence Mitchell, Metod3, sources close to............................. someones having a laugh.
The expression hook, line, sinker and half way down the rod comes to mind 8(>((
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3140.0
Clarence Mitchell, Metod3, sources close to............................. someones having a laugh.
The expression hook, line, sinker and half way down the rod comes to mind 8(>((
Cutting out the sensationalist crap, she probably did notice some guy near the apartment and thought it might be relevant.
-
Were Levy's translated files on the internet 16 days after they were released? Or did the paper get the files, have them translated and combed through within that timescale? Even if they did, as far as I can see there's no personal details in the files for this person.
Sorry, I'm more inclined to think the newspaper was given this story than that it found it all by itself.
Margaret halls statement detail is dated november by the PJ
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
And whats with the was employed from oct 2006 but was babysitting in august/sept?
Good job the mirror getting it as early as august
-
Cutting out the sensationalist crap, she probably did notice some guy near the apartment and thought it might be relevant.
Yeah! and as I observed earlier according the story some geezer who knew how to get into and lurk in position without tripping the PIR. Now how do you suppose that happened? Random chance? piss poor siting of the PIR in that case or..........? your starter for ten.
-
Yeah! and as I observed earlier according the story some geezer who knew how to get into and lurk in position without tripping the PIR. Now how do you suppose that happened? Random chance? piss poor siting of the PIR in that case or..........? your starter for ten.
Is there mention anywhere in the files of a PIR ?
-
Good example.
Yea of 48 question ms mccann refused to answer, she could of cleared it up but chose not to
-
Yea of 48 question ms mccann refused to answer, she could of cleared it up but chose not to
She very sensibly heeded legal advice not to.
-
An innocent person refusing to answer questions ?
Yeh ok
-
An innocent person refusing to answer questions ?
Yeh ok
GA seems a bit naughty in this next quote where he appears to explain her rights but also presumes her guilt. Whereas there is the necessity to presume innocence till proven guilty.
She states her name and gives her address as her home in Great Britain. Taking advantage of the right accorded to her by her status, she remains silent and does not answer questions concerning the circumstances of her daughter's death, on May 3rd 2007, in the Ocean Club apartment.
Page #133
-
Yada yada yadag *&*%
-
Yada yada yadag *&*%
Never a truer word spoken "Yada yada yadag *&*%"
-
Never a truer word spoken "Yada yada yadag *&*%"
Thank you lol
-
First major cock up in translations or facts show up here!
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBIN_CROSSLAND-1.htm
That at around 22h15 of 03 May 2007, he was alone in his residence, situated in Lagos, and was contacted by John Hill, Mark Warner manager who works in the Ocean Club establishment and who informed him that a child, a minor, of the feminine sex, who was staying with her family in that resort, had disappeared and that he was going to initiate the 'procedure for missing child' (sic);
. The deponent left toward the local where he arrived at 22H25 and there found John Hill and other functionaries, Silvia Batista, Joao Batista, the former who is employee manager and the latter maintenance;
. That when he arrived at the Ocean Club, he went to the entry of the pool and the restaurant (Tapas) areas of said establishment, having there come across various individuals in the local, all of which were participating in the search for the lost child, and was made up of guests and other people;. That at around 22H50, local elements of the GNR arrived and took charge of the occurrence, and began to manage and lead the search operations of the child missing in the area;
. That until the GNR arrived at the local it was John Hill who determined what to do;
Were John Hill and Silvia Batista already at OC 22H25?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7046.msg306850#msg306850
p73 "At 10:35 the police had still not arrived," "Gerry asked Matt if he would go back down to the 24hr reception"
"John Hill … came up to the veranda behind our apartment." "Where are the police?' I yelled at him." "He tried to reassure me they'd be with us soon."
Didn't we established that the Police weren't called till 10:42? so how could John Hill reassure Kate the PJ would be with them soon!
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg348154#msg348154
Did John Hill call the police prior to Kate's alert? Part of Shininginluz' post:
I've never seen any suggestion staff were alerted twice in the PJ Files. I've never seen anything in the media about two alerts, and that would be a hot story. And I've never seen or heard of a missing child, which would require clarification to prevent it polluting information relating to Madeleine.
A whole thread on the topic http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1383.msg39704#msg39704
and the year before:
"Why did the Ocean Club not call the police sooner?"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6160.msg228871#msg228871
-
it is hard to be correct all the time. I have noted that previously I said Helder's shift finishes at 22H00 but this is now incorrect but finished at midnight.
-
it is hard to be correct all the time. I have noted that previously I said Helder's shift finishes at 22H00 but this is now incorrect but finished at midnight.
Yeah have a rest xx
-
it is hard to be correct all the time. I have noted that previously I said Helder's shift finishes at 22H00 but this is now incorrect but finished at midnight.
Everyone makes an odd mistake, Rob. Thanks for correcting it.
I dont agree with your theory but I value your hard work and integrity.
The solution may be in the detail ... pace yourself, but keep going