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: Mr Gray on January 14, 2018, 11:19:33 AM
-
The statements conclude with... Read ratifies and signs...
We know the mccanns did not read their statements
-
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
Someone should have told the NPIA. No contradictions, just translation errors.
-
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
Someone should have told the NPIA. No contradictions, just translation errors.
That was a statement by one of amarals lawyers... Added on the the end of an official statement... And anothe myth was born
-
They did? There were signatures: the witness, the officer and the interpreter. Have you found any specific blurb re certifiying the accuracy that what was said was recorded as such in the written witness statements themselves? The only thing that I've found and posted was the generic oath statement that they had to sign (sometimes retroactively).
I've no doubt that the "interpreters" did their best (whatever their actual proficiency), but at the end of the day, their job was to attempt to convey what both parties were saying, which ended up as a PJ summary statement.
ratify;
sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ratify&oq=ratify&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5612j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
All three signatories were ratifying the correctness of what was recorded. Apart from innuendo, do you have any evidence that the interpreters made mistakes?
-
ratify;
sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ratify&oq=ratify&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5612j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
All three signatories were ratifying the correctness of what was recorded. Apart from innuendo, do you have any evidence that the interpreters made mistakes?
You have missed out ...reads... They signed to say they had read the statements... But they could not have done so
-
Why would a lawyer say 'us'.
He wasn't the police.
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
That doesn't make sense.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
What makes perfect sense is that he was reading the comments from the report.
Then it makes sense.
-
In English law, those signatures word be worthless for obvious reasons.... It appears the Portuguese system was woefully short of decent standards.. Imo
-
Why would a lawyer say 'us'.
He wasn't the police.
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
That doesn't make sense.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
What makes perfect sense is that he was reading the comments from the report.
Then it makes sense.
Makes, sense to you... It is clear to me he read from a report and then added his own comment at the end... And another myth was born
-
Makes, sense to you... It is clear to me he read from a report and then added his own comment at the end... And another myth was born
So what 'us' was he talking about?
Amaral & his defence team?
-
Not really...several posters make what I regard as basic errors....you for instance seem to refuse to accept there, are translational errors in the statements which means your conclusions are flawed.. Imo
Heri made a gross error with the woman in purple.... I have a great deal of respect for SY who we, are told solve 90% of their, serious cases... If the case is solved it will be by the hard work of SY... Not by some amateur on a, forum who overates their abilities... All my opinion
Afaiac the poster who has, shown the most knowledge and understanding of the case is Carana who shares my view that the parents are not involved
Its funny how the McCanns in their many 'interviews' never mentioned errors in translation or otherwise. They never mentioned them in their court appearances either...Are you speaking on their behalf,if so can you please provide some instances verified by the parents. Thanks. If not can you say you are just guessing to push your agenda. Again, Thanks.
-
Its funny how the McCanns in their many 'interviews' never mentioned errors in translation or otherwise. They never mentioned them in their court appearances either...Are you speaking on their behalf,if so can you please provide some instances verified by the parents. Thanks. If not can you say you are just guessing to push your agenda. Again, Thanks.
Kate mentions it in her book I believe.... Gerry needed to correct a statement... Once again you use absence of evidence
-
Kate mentions it in her book I believe.... Gerry needed to correct a statement... Once again you use absence of evidence
You believe she mentions it in her book?. so you are not sure?. OK. Did Kate , which you believe mentions in her book , also mention when this error was corrected? was it corrected during their reading it, or just after reading it or months ,years later?
-
ratify;
sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ratify&oq=ratify&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5612j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
All three signatories were ratifying the correctness of what was recorded. Apart from innuendo, do you have any evidence that the interpreters made mistakes?
I find context important, and I find bearing in mind the rush to get initial statements out to move on to be part of that.
- Do you know anything about the proficiency of the lady who interpreted for Gerry and later Kate on that first day? I haven't found anything. I'm not criticising her at all, I'm sure she did the best she could.
- Is there anything in the files that the initial interpreters read out the written summary statement word for word? Were they even gone over in detail with all three to make sure that they all agreed? I haven't found anything. Perhaps, but I don't know. Do you?
-
I find context important, and I find bearing in mind the rush to get initial statements out to move on to be part of that.
- Do you know anything about the proficiency of the lady who interpreted for Gerry and later Kate on that first day? I haven't found anything. I'm not criticising her at all, I'm sure she did the best she could.
- Is there anything in the files that the initial interpreters read out the written summary statement word for word? Were they even gone over in detail with all three to make sure that they all agreed? I haven't found anything. Perhaps, but I don't know. Do you?
Damning with faint praise, when you admit that you know nothing about her proficiency.
For all you know, she could have been word perfect.
-
Damning with faint praise, when you admit that you know nothing about her proficiency.
For all you know, she could have been word perfect.
Of course, she could have been. But how is anyone supposed to judge? I find that there are questions marks surrounding the issue, not just in terms of proficiency, but in terms of what really does seem as a fairly chaotic situation for everyone.
-
Why would a lawyer say 'us'.
He wasn't the police.
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
That doesn't make sense.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.
"The family is a lead that should be followed.
The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.
"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."
What makes perfect sense is that he was reading the comments from the report.
Then it makes sense.
Aside from the fact that Amaral's lawyer submitted an extract from what I presume to be a confidential report that isn't in the publicly available files, I don't have a problem with what Rainbow apparently wrote. Of course, anyone close to the missing child, by affiliation or by geographic proximity, should be thoroughly investigated.
Fairly elementary, isn't it?
Or was that supposed to be earth-shattering?
-
Aside from the fact that Amaral's lawyer submitted an extract from what I presume to be a confidential report that isn't in the publicly available files, I don't have a problem with what Rainbow apparently wrote. Of course, anyone close to the missing child, by affiliation or by geographic proximity, should be thoroughly investigated.
Fairly elementary, isn't it?
Or was that supposed to be earth-shattering?
So where do you stand on this...
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
Was this Amarals lawyer adding comment?
Or was it in the contents of the report?
The wording suggests it came from the report, does it not?
-
Of course, she could have been. But how is anyone supposed to judge? I find that there are questions marks surrounding the issue, not just in terms of proficiency, but in terms of what really does seem as a fairly chaotic situation for everyone.
The absence of any criticism of the wording of statements by the parents is quite telling. The McCanns and their family, not even in the country OR having had any dealings with the PJ, were slagging them off on every and any media outlet they could hogg - would have I am sure, added this to their lists of incompetences they had highlighted. Like you know the 'deal for Kate' scenario...
Instead of supporters trying as they do to blame everyone else, they should accept the McCanns are not fools and know exactly what they are doing. You can invent all different versions of what happened and blame everyone for not doing what the parents should have done in the first place and that is care about the well being of young Maddie and her siblings. AND promoted themselves as victims to secure their reputations.
-
So where do you stand on this...
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
Was this Amarals lawyer adding comment?
Or was it in the contents of the report?
The wording suggests it came from the report, does it not?
This bit suggests that it came from a report:
His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.
"The family is a lead that should be followed.
The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
I've no idea who "us" means, unless in a global law enforcement sense, or perhaps the NPIA alone, or NPIA together with other UK agencies. No idea. Not enough to go on.
What background information did Rainblow actually have? Was he simply presented with the two statements? Did he understand the potentially chaotic situation? When was this report written?
If so, how does that compute with the notion that the FLOs (on the "twins v Sean and me" saga) had no access to any information and wouldn't have had access to any documents at all?
-
This bit suggests that it came from a report:
His lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, told the court that Rainbow wrote: "It was Madeleine's father who was the last one to see her alive.
"The family is a lead that should be followed.
The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
I've no idea who "us" means, unless in a global law enforcement sense, or perhaps the NPIA alone, or NPIA together with other UK agencies. No idea. Not enough to go on.
What background information did Rainblow actually have? Was he simply presented with the two statements? Did he understand the potentially chaotic situation? When was this report written?
If so, how does that compute with the notion that the FLOs (on the "twins v Sean and me" saga) had no access to any information and wouldn't have had access to any documents at all?
That's probably because it did.
Let davel know that, as he hasn't quite grasped it.
You can scrub that one from the myths section & help stop the myths.
-
That's probably because it did.
Let davel know that, as he hasn't quite grasped it.
You can scrub that one from the myths section & help stop the myths.
But Cabrita's further comment seems to be his opinion:
Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.
"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."
ETA:
Is that report publicly accessible in the damages / libel trial documents?
ETA2: I wonder if that was Amaral's "ace"?
If so, hardly rocket science that anyone with potential physical access to her should be considered as a potential suspect.
-
But Cabrita's further comment seems to be his opinion:
Cabrita added: "This report has never been published before but is part of the investigation. On June 1st 2007 British police had the theory that Madeleine could be dead and the family could be involved.
"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."
But nothing.
That part may be his opinion.
This part...
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
.... wasn't.
-
But nothing.
That part may be his opinion.
This part...
"The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
.... wasn't.
Not rocket science, though, is it?
Is there any indication as to when this report was written?
ETA: Yes, June 1 07.
-
And where does that leave us on the notion that the UK agencies (including the FLOs) had no access to initial documents?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8941.0
-
The report didn't say,
The translation errors in Gerald McCanns witness statement might lead us to suspect a homicide.
It doesn't say that.
This was the conclusion of a British police agency, not something thought up by a 2nd rate foreign police force, therefore it is 100% accurate & correct.
There are contradictions & they aren't translation errors.
-
The report didn't say,
The translation errors in Gerald McCanns witness statement might lead us to suspect a homicide.
It doesn't say that.
This was the conclusion of a British police agency, not something thought up by a 2nd rate foreign police force, therefore it is 100% accurate & correct.
There are contradictions & they aren't translation errors.
If indeed there were any mishaps in the interpreting process, what evidence is there that Rainbow would have been aware of them at the time? Was he fully informed of the resources available at the time, or was he simply shown 2 seemingly differing statements?
-
If indeed there were any mishaps in the interpreting process, what evidence is there that Rainbow would have been aware of them at the time? Was he fully informed of the resources available at the time, or was he simply shown 2 seemingly differing statements?
If?
You changed your tune, you always seem so certain before.
You're suggesting the NPIA were incompetent or ill informed.
I suspect the NPIA were privy to more information than forum ghouls can obtain.
-
That's probably because it did.
Let davel know that, as he hasn't quite grasped it.
You can scrub that one from the myths section & help stop the myths.
You say probably did... I say probably didn't.... Do you have any cite to show you are correct... The answer is no... I would say Rainbow said the parents should be investigated and the lawyer added his opinion to it... My opinion is as valid as yours or anyone else
-
You say probably did... I say probably didn't.... Do you have any cite to show you are correct... The answer is no... I would say Rainbow said the parents should be investigated and the lawyer added his opinion to it... My opinion is as valid as yours or anyone else
No, it's just obvious to anyone who understands English that the comment doesn't make any sense when used in the context you'd prefer.
-
No, it's just obvious to anyone who understands English that the comment doesn't make any sense when used in the context you'd prefer.
You might think so... I disagree.... If you can show your opinion is correct then do... You cant
-
You might think so... I disagree.... If you can show your opinion is correct then do... You cant
I don't need to. It just is.
-
I don't need to. It just is.
It doesn't matter what you think nor what I think
-
It doesn't matter what you think nor what I think
What matters are the facts.
And according to Rowley, the fact is abduction.
Although, I can't understand why he didn't help the McCanns with their appeal to the SC.
-
What matters are the facts.
And according to Rowley, the fact is abduction.
Although, I can't understand why he didn't help them with their appeal to the SC.
Yes what matters, are the facts... According to both investigations mccanns not suspects
-
I don't think any of the translation errors are of any relevance now... All misunderstandings cleared up imo
-
As it is breach of the forum rules to discuss members who post elsewhere I have removed the first few posts of this thread and renamed it.
Admin
-
I don't think any of the translation errors are of any relevance now... All misunderstandings cleared up imo
If you mean discrepancies you should say so. Misunderstandings is IYO as is cleared up which isn't how you have put it.
-
The statements conclude with... Read ratifies and signs...
We know the mccanns did not read their statements
I can see no difference between an interpreter reading a statement to a witness in Portugal and a police officer reading a statement to an illiterate witness in the UK;
Once the statement has been written, the police officer will ask you to read through it to check that it is right. If you want you can ask the police officer to read your statement to you.
You will be asked to sign the statement to say that it is an accurate account of what you think happened.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-statement-police
-
I don't think any of the translation errors are of any relevance now... All misunderstandings cleared up imo
The 'translation errors' which are simply unfounded allegations you mean?
-
I can see no difference between an interpreter reading a statement to a witness in Portugal and a police officer reading a statement to an illiterate witness in the UK;
Once the statement has been written, the police officer will ask you to read through it to check that it is right. If you want you can ask the police officer to read your statement to you.
You will be asked to sign the statement to say that it is an accurate account of what you think happened.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-statement-police
Do you know what the guidelines are for an illiterate witness signing a statement in the uk... I doubt very much it could be used in evidence against them
There is no way those statements can be verified as there is no record of the mccanns actual words. In the uk they would
No comply with our guidelines... Portugal may not have such rigorous standards
-
In English law, those signatures word be worthless for obvious reasons.... It appears the Portuguese system was woefully short of decent standards.. Imo
That may well be the case but that is the hand which was dealt.
You either play it or fold. Complaining about misdeals and procrastinating will only put off the inevitable day when you have to play the hand you were dealt.
-
The thread title is:
"Were the translation errors of critical relevance?"
May we please have examples of these translation errors?
The OP says:
"The statements conclude with... Read ratifies and signs...
We know the mccanns did not read their statements"
Which are we discussing?
I would hate to wax all lyrical ony to find it was disappeared in a puff of green smoke for being off topic.. ?{)(**
-
If?
You changed your tune, you always seem so certain before.
You're suggesting the NPIA were incompetent or ill informed.
I suspect the NPIA were privy to more information than forum ghouls can obtain.
I was thinking of the other discussion (I linked to the thread earlier) on the discussion re the FLOs, where the suggestion by a poster was that they wouldn't have had access to the initial statement(s).
The debrief does say that the UK had little access (but not that they didn't have any at any point).
My questions are: what did the UK agencies have access to in terms of the PJ statements? Were they aware of the conditions? Did Rainbow have access to anything more than the statements? Is it rocket science to suggest that those close to the missing child (in any sense of the term) shouldn't be considered as suspects until eliminated?
-
My point is: how much access did the UK police have, in the initial phase, to be able to form a point of view?
Totally open question.
-
I have no idea whether any translation or lost-in-confusion errors occurred (although I fnd that quite likely).
Whether any were criticial.... in what sense?
If the PJ really didn't take time to consider that just possibly, eventuallly, something had got screwed up in a lost-in-confusion issue, then I find it difficult to imagine that they were really experienced.
Perhaps the aim of the 2nd round was because they actually did try to verify if anything in that initial phase could have been lost in the general chaos. If so, good on them.
-
My point is: how much access did the UK police have, in the initial phase, to be able to form a point of view?
Totally open question.
Going back to your previous post I would read "little access" as diplospeke for "b****r all access".
Were it my case I would have played my cards very close with a bunch of policeman from abroad of whom I knew nothing, who were but civilians in my country and possibly over chatty with the world's press.
My view as the incumbent would be "I am here to do a job not make friends".
-
That may well be the case but that is the hand which was dealt.
You either play it or fold. Complaining about misdeals and procrastinating will only put off the inevitable day when you have to play the hand you were dealt.
We are discussing... It'd a discussion forum
-
I don't believe the minor translation errors had any relevance one way or another, after all, the translations were merely for the benefit of others and had no real impact on investigators. What might have got misinterpreted however was the instructions to Metodo 3 in that "Search for Madeleine" somehow became"Hit Amaral".
-
I don't believe the minor translation errors had any relevance one way or another, after all, the translations were merely for the benefit of others and had no real impact on investigators. What might have got misinterpreted however was the instructions to Metodo 3 in that "Search for Madeleine" somehow became"Hit Amaral".
All people and organisations would naturally become target for investigation. Why should they not look at Amaral?
-
All people and organisations would naturally become target for investigation. Why should they not look at Amaral?
During an investigation?
-
During an investigation?
I don't see why not. He was demoted by that stage so the effect on the investigation must have been non existent IMO. How could it affect the investigation?
-
In the English language we use translate when referring to the written word, interpret when referring to the spoken word.
I believe the thread is looking at alleged errors by interpreters, although the title suggests they are facts. I've seen no evidence to support that.
-
Explanations of the difficulties encountered in translating accurately have been provided by the translators themselves by way of notes in the statements - and have been posted on here more than once..
Evidence of how Kate's diary was mistranslated - causing the opposite meaning of what she said to be wrongly made public have also been posted,
It's obvious to me when reading some of the statements that the wording chosen by the interpreter, although strictly speaking may not be incorrect - is not a word /phrase that the interviewee would use in normal everyday conversation.
Sometimes there are several words all with slightly different meanings which can be used to explain one word. IMO an example of that is the word 'monitor' which can mean 'checked' - but the word 'checked' can also mean 'controlled' - which does not mean 'monitor'. That one example itself has been the cause of much controversy over C.Mitchell's role in the media.
It is very telling IMO that the McCanns paid £100,000 to have the files professionally translated.
Quote from Kate's book:
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! A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you've provided it.
End quote
One wrongly translated word can make a huge difference to a statement. IMO The idea that errors could not have occurred because the interviewees signed statements as being correct is naive. IMO it is proof that folk are human and will and do make mistakes - especially if their statement has been read out to them at the end of long tiring interrogations, and they have not had the opportunity to sit and read it themselves in their own language when they are refreshed.
All in my opinion, no-one is obliged to agree with me.
-
In the English language we use translate when referring to the written word, interpret when referring to the spoken word.
I believe the thread is looking at alleged errors by interpreters, although the title suggests they are facts. I've seen no evidence to support that.
I feel this is the 3rd time this issue has been seriously debated in the last year and a half. I think it was the way the PJ took that statements that allowed the suggestion that translation/interpretation errors could be important. Unless there was the original language statement present there was no paper trail to refute the suggestion.
-
Explanations of the difficulties encountered in translating accurately have been provided by the translators themselves by way of notes in the statements - and have been posted on here more than once..
Evidence of how Kate's diary was mistranslated - causing the opposite meaning of what she said to be wrongly made public have also been posted,
It's obvious to me when reading some of the statements that the wording chosen by the interpreter, although strictly speaking may not be incorrect - is not a word /phrase that the interviewee would use in normal everyday conversation.
Sometimes there are several words all with slightly different meanings which can be used to explain one word. IMO an example of that is the word 'monitor' which can mean 'checked' - but the word 'checked' can also mean 'controlled' - which does not mean 'monitor'. That one example itself has been the cause of much controversy over C.Mitchell's role in the media.
It is very telling IMO that the McCanns paid £100,000 to have the files professionally translated.
Quote from Kate's book:
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! A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you've provided it.
End quote
One wrongly translated word can make a huge difference to a statement. IMO The idea that errors could not have occurred because the interviewees signed statements as being correct is naive. IMO it is proof that folk are human and will and do make mistakes - especially if their statement has been read out to them at the end of long tiring interrogations, and they have not had the opportunity to sit and read it themselves in their own language when they are refreshed.
All in my opinion, no-one is obliged to agree with me.
I think we're discussing interpreting rather than translating. The point of interpreting is to listen to something said in one language and interpret it in another language. A word for word interpretation makes no sense to the listener in many cases. That's why it's called interpreting. The aim is to convey the sense of what is being said.
Criticising how the statements were ratified is all very well, but the fact that they were ratified remains.
-
I think we're discussing interpreting rather than translating. The point of interpreting is to listen to something said in one language and interpret it in another language. A word for word interpretation makes no sense to the listener in many cases. That's why it's called interpreting. The aim is to convey the sense of what is being said.
Criticising how the statements were ratified is all very well, but the fact that they were ratified remains.
Reads ratifies and signs
How could they be ratified if they we're not read. Therefore they we're, signed but not ratified IMO...6
-
I feel this is the 3rd time this issue has been seriously debated in the last year and a half. I think it was the way the PJ took that statements that allowed the suggestion that translation/interpretation errors could be important. Unless there was the original language statement present there was no paper trail to refute the suggestion.
The PJ took the statements in accordance with Portuguese law. They were under no obligation to do it to any other standards. If those giving the statements noticed errors they should have said so; that's the purpose of the reading back.
Blaming the PJ and/or interpreters instead of accepting what the witnesses said seems to me to be a somewhat desperate ploy.
-
The PJ took the statements in accordance with Portuguese law. They were under no obligation to do it to any other standards. If those giving the statements noticed errors they should have said so; that's the purpose of the reading back.
Blaming the PJ and/or interpreters instead of accepting what the witnesses said seems to me to be a somewhat desperate ploy.
How do we know what was read back was accurate... We don't... It may have been to Portuguese standards but those standards could well result in confusion which is exactly what's happened imo
-
The PJ took the statements in accordance with Portuguese law. They were under no obligation to do it to any other standards. If those giving the statements noticed errors they should have said so; that's the purpose of the reading back.
Blaming the PJ and/or interpreters instead of accepting what the witnesses said seems to me to be a somewhat desperate ploy.
Several times we have attempted to define the Portuguese law on this matter. Your opinion might be that they were taken as per the law but there was definite evidence of the investigation fixing things up so maybe they were not to the letter of the law. That is something we were never able to fully resolve.
Not all the information has been released to us through the file so I feel we can't be sure.
-
Going back to your previous post I would read "little access" as diplospeke for "b****r all access".
Were it my case I would have played my cards very close with a bunch of policeman from abroad of whom I knew nothing, who were but civilians in my country and possibly over chatty with the world's press.
My view as the incumbent would be "I am here to do a job not make friends".
LOL
Cutting through diplobabble, I'd agree that they probably really did have little access.
However, if there was nothing to go on, what was Rainbows's cite based on? And this seemingly dated back to 1 June 07.
A general appreciation in the absence of any specific information?
-
LOL
Cutting through diplobabble, I'd agree that they probably really did have little access.
However, if there was nothing to go on, what was Rainbows's cite based on? And this seemingly dated back to 1 June 07.
A general appreciation in the absence of any specific information?
rainbow had nothing to go on...and therefore he would not have known about any inconsistencies in the statements.....he would have said the parents should be looked at but I believe the second part re inconsistencies was an observation by amarals lawyer...al my opinion
-
How do we know what was read back was accurate... We don't... It may have been to Portuguese standards but those standards could well result in confusion which is exactly what's happened imo
In my opinion it's not acceptable to accuse the interpreters of making mistakes without any evidence. I ask again; provide your evidence or admit that your allegations are unfounded.
In my opinion there have been efforts to create confusion, but they haven't succeeded in confusing me.
-
In my opinion it's not acceptable to accuse the interpreters of making mistakes without any evidence. I ask again; provide your evidence or admit that your allegations are unfounded.
In my opinion there have been efforts to create confusion, but they haven't succeeded in confusing me.
It is quite possible if not probable that mistakes we're made IMO... We do not have evidence to show that it did not happen. That is, fair comment imo
-
If there were no errors, then why were all the translations on the attached link revised?
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/recently-revised-translations-t13549.html
-
If there were no errors, then why were all the translations on the attached link revised?
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/recently-revised-translations-t13549.html
We like errors that means we know the limits of what we are dealing with.
We like errors up to 2/12. That is a majority verdict in a UK Jury.
So provided the errors are not > 2/12 we is all happy; right?
-
If there were no errors, then why were all the translations on the attached link revised?
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/recently-revised-translations-t13549.html
I take it you are saying that the translations by volunteers of the statements in the PJ files were revised? That has no bearing whatsoever on the work of the interpreters.
-
It is quite possible if not probable that mistakes we're made IMO... We do not have evidence to show that it did not happen. That is, fair comment imo
As you now seem to be admitting, that is your opinion, nothing else. You can't state as a fact that errors were made because you have no evidence. Or is the lack of evidence evidence of guilt this time in your opinion?
-
As you now seem to be admitting, that is your opinion, nothing else. You can't state as a fact that errors were made because you have no evidence. Or is the lack of evidence evidence of guilt this time in your opinion?
And you cannot state as a fact that they are 100% accurate... Because we have no knowledge of the original
So how, accurate are, they.... You just don't know
-
I take it you are saying that the translations by volunteers of the statements in the PJ files were revised? That has no bearing whatsoever on the work of the interpreters.
If a translator is unable to be accurate when using the written word, what chance an interpreter working from the spoken word?
-
One aspect of the file is the spelling of names. The re-translated files that we can read have high proportion of names spelt wrongly. In fact even within the PJ files there was variant spelling of surnames that would making searching digital files rather difficult.
-
If a translator is unable to be accurate when using the written word, what chance an interpreter working from the spoken word?
Yeah and if you are a bloke be careful how you ask for a gaslighter to be filled, when in Italy.... slapped face country is that.
And in France never try to say "don't let the fire out" or your mate might be incarcerated in a loony bin.
As for German well let's start with Flugzeug ...every schoolboy's favourite, do you interpret as aeroplane or flying tool.
Best just stay north of the soggy bit at Dover; life can be so hard.
"Olivier's Hamlet pronounced success"
Ghoti anyone?
Gimme strength.
Why am I always reminded of this vis a vis PdL ?:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pooh+in+rabbit%27s+holonee+eh+shepard&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=n8Zt2BycIqnNKM%253A%252CTIPSsbuzcqtWKM%252C_&usg=__0Zw-BmuS5sFFPz7oLeTDcbS7px4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS2pfvzdjYAhUEKcAKHUSEAcMQ9QEIMzAE#imgrc=n8Zt2BycIqnNKM:
-
I was about to start the on the Jane Tanner thread and the very first sentence I read IMO is the classic translation/interpretation error of the evidence that is evident throughout the file.
Jane's 4th May statement "The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from."
Now what does that mean and how come it has become a sentence that would be nothing like what Jane would ever say?
Taking a bit more of the statement to get the context of what was being said: "Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from."
So basically Jane is confirming "the entrance to the apartment building" or the drive in entrance way is off the street Jane saw the individual on.
There was no way she could see that he appeared out of the driveway and she never claims that but that is a possible interpretation of the translated statement.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
-
there is another translation error that Jane Tanner mentions in Jane Tanner rogatory:
"Reply “Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten. But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower. But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”."
-
As you now seem to be admitting, that is your opinion, nothing else. You can't state as a fact that errors were made because you have no evidence. Or is the lack of evidence evidence of guilt this time in your opinion?
It does seem that the accusation of errors in interpretation is made with no evidence but more a desire to remove discrepancies from the narrative. If that were accepted as a general rule then unless recordings are made it would be virtually impossible a make a case through changing stories against a foreign language speaker.
-
And you cannot state as a fact that they are 100% accurate... Because we have no knowledge of the original
So how, accurate are, they.... You just don't know
Those who do know, because they were there, agreed with what the statements said and signed to confirm that.
-
Yeah and if you are a bloke be careful how you ask for a gaslighter to be filled, when in Italy.... slapped face country is that.
And in France never try to say "don't let the fire out" or your mate might be incarcerated in a loony bin.
As for German well let's start with Flugzeug ...every schoolboy's favourite, do you interpret as aeroplane or flying tool.
Best just stay north of the soggy bit at Dover; life can be so hard.
"Olivier's Hamlet pronounced success"
Ghoti anyone?
Gimme strength.
Why am I always reminded of this vis a vis PdL ?:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pooh+in+rabbit%27s+holonee+eh+shepard&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=n8Zt2BycIqnNKM%253A%252CTIPSsbuzcqtWKM%252C_&usg=__0Zw-BmuS5sFFPz7oLeTDcbS7px4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS2pfvzdjYAhUEKcAKHUSEAcMQ9QEIMzAE#imgrc=n8Zt2BycIqnNKM:
Try listening to a French speaker talk about focus groups and keep a straight face. @)(++(*
-
Those who do know, because they were there, agreed with what the statements said and signed to confirm that.
Not necessarily They changed the language and the way things are said , Jane worked in feet and inches and it was converted incorrectly to metric, Jane still signed. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9005.msg440747#msg440747
-
If a translator is unable to be accurate when using the written word, what chance an interpreter working from the spoken word?
First of all, those who kindly translated the PJ files were amateurs and volunteers. Those who did the interpreting were paid professionals.
Secondly, both jobs involve interpreting what was said or written so it makes sense. Google translate doesn't do that very well, so you can see the difference. That's why two different translators may give slightly different interpretations.
-
This isn't a translation error, but rather a lost-in-cultural-confusion one. Without the video, there would have been no record that Grime's assertion as to where Keela alerted was wrong. He must have been thinking of behind the driver's side of the door on a UK car (where the driver's side is on the right), but in (mainland) Europe, the driver's side is on the left. So, on paper, it reads as if she alerted on the opposite side to where she actually did.
Easy to dismiss as the video is available, thanks to a naughty fan. But what if there hadn't been a video record in a more complex case with a jury that would just take Grime's written statement indicating a hypothetically crucial alert on the wrong side as a "proven fact"?
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and
no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the
vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the
boot area.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
It does seem that the accusation of errors in interpretation is made with no evidence but more a desire to remove discrepancies from the narrative. If that were accepted as a general rule then unless recordings are made it would be virtually impossible a make a case through changing stories against a foreign language speaker.
If all the statements were dismissed as probably inaccurate it might make sense. In this case some statements are quoted as evidence, others dismissed as inaccurate. It seems to me to depend solely on whether the statement supports the poster's opinions or not.
-
If all the statements were dismissed as probably inaccurate it might make sense. In this case some statements are quoted as evidence, others dismissed as inaccurate. It seems to me to depend solely on whether the statement supports the poster's opinions or not.
That does appear to be the case. IMO
-
First of all, those who kindly translated the PJ files were amateurs and volunteers. Those who did the interpreting were paid professionals.
Secondly, both jobs involve interpreting what was said or written so it makes sense. Google translate doesn't do that very well, so you can see the difference. That's why two different translators may give slightly different interpretations.
They would have been paid, but it's not clear whether they were professional interpreters or not. Murat certainly wasn't (although no one seems to have had a complaint about a misunderstanding in his case).
My issue is that I, for one, have no idea how competent the lady was who intepreted Gerry's statement on 4 May. Perhaps she was, or perhaps she was just the first person who was available at short notice with a working knowledge of basic English, until things got a bit more organised.
IMO, some people seem to attach a huge amount of importance to the supposed discrepancies without taking into consideration the possibility that it was just a lost-in-translation/ confusion issue, which got rectified at the next interview anyway. Whether that's the case or not, perhaps we'll never know.
-
If all the statements were dismissed as probably inaccurate it might make sense. In this case some statements are quoted as evidence, others dismissed as inaccurate. It seems to me to depend solely on whether the statement supports the poster's opinions or not.
I know that some have (on both sides of the fence).
-
We like errors that means we know the limits of what we are dealing with.
We like errors up to 2/12. That is a majority verdict in a UK Jury.
So provided the errors are not > 2/12 we is all happy; right?
It might depend on whether what's at stake is a single potentially dissatisfied customer or whether you face the prospect of the electric chair...
-
Not necessarily They changed the language and the way things are said , Jane worked in feet and inches and it was converted incorrectly to metric, Jane still signed. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9005.msg440747#msg440747
Are you able to give a cite to the statement in which Jane mentioned the man's height to the PJ? I can't find it.
-
Are you able to give a cite to the statement in which Jane mentioned the man's height to the PJ? I can't find it.
Can you find the egg head drawing as well? You must know that not all the files are released.
-
Can you find the egg head drawing as well? You must know that not all the files are released.
I have found Jane's statement although you won't or can't. Why she would assume that Europeans would be able to convert feet and inches to metres I don't know. The onus was on Jane to be clear what she meant in my opinion.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
The egg head drawing was not made by the PJ, it was made by Simon Russell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/5982953/Madeleine-McCann-E-fits-of-suspects.html?image=10
Why anyone would suggest that the PJ were showing it to people I can't imagine.
Edited removed goading.
-
I have found Jane's statement although you won't or can't. @)(++(* Why she would assume that Europeans would be able to convert feet and inches to metres I don't know. The onus was on Jane to be clear what she meant in my opinion.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
The egg head drawing was not made by the PJ, it was made by Simon Russell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/5982953/Madeleine-McCann-E-fits-of-suspects.html?image=10
Why anyone would suggest that the PJ were showing it to people I can't imagine.
If Jane commenced drawing a identikit but then said she had not seen the frontal aspect of the person's head you could get a head shape without features just showing the hair.
"The e-fit of a man, as drawn from memory by British-born DVD shop owner Simon Russell after being shown it by police, in Praia Da Luz, following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann." Are you calling Simon Russell a liar. He says he was shown a similar drawing, You have no reason to discount that.
As far as quoting a whole file I find that rather pointless sorry. Jane says she expressed a height in feet and inches and later that was discovered the metric conversion was in error, so that happens.
-
there is another translation error that Jane Tanner mentions in Jane Tanner rogatory:
"Reply “Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten. But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower. But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so”."
It does not matter a toss. The average human being is crap at estimating time distance and mass whatever the units.
-
It does not matter a toss. The average human being is crap at estimating time distance and mass whatever the units.
I was thinking that as I was reading her statement, wondering just what the police would do with the information. OK it would eliminate very light or heavy suspects, very short or very tall suspects. So the description is not totally useless information IMO.
-
It might depend on whether what's at stake is a single potentially dissatisfied customer or whether you face the prospect of the electric chair...
Portugal eliminated death sentencing in the 19th century. I believe they don't hand down life sentences either.
Gosh what a backward third world outfit they are..... 8(0(*
-
I was thinking that as I was reading her statement, wondering just what the police would do with the information. OK it would eliminate very light or heavy suspects, very short or very tall suspects. So the description is not totally useless information IMO.
I didn't say it was.
I was saying that your analysis of "errors" in translation and the impact thereof is blx.
No offence intended.
You need to know how the information is used by the system.
It is there to be found .
-
Portugal eliminated death sentencing in the 19th century. I believe they don't hand down life sentences either.
Gosh what a backward third world outfit they are..... 8(0(*
Naughty, Alice. lol
-
I can see both your points (I think).
- Rob's was that details can get lost in translation / cultural differences (which is a point I raised earlier as well).
- Alice's point is that most people are crap at estimations anyway (and that includes me, unless we're talking about estimating the weight of luggage lol).
From Jane's rog, the officer was trying to get Jane to estimate distance by comparing it to something (which is what I'd need). I don't know if the officer had that idea spontaneously, or whether that's part of their training.
4078 “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room, but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’ say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer five”.
4078 “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.
4078 “I don’t know why I was looking over there, it’s like I was (inaudible)”.
Reply “I know. But, yeah, I’d say probably, and then obviously I was walking as they were walking, so it would have probably, I don’t know whether it would have gone less or, but, I mean, I wasn’t like staring, you know, it was sort of like a”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
If all the statements were dismissed as probably inaccurate it might make sense. In this case some statements are quoted as evidence, others dismissed as inaccurate. It seems to me to depend solely on whether the statement supports the poster's opinions or not.
What I have said is we just do not know if there were errors... That could explain the inconsistencies
We know that the mccanns have said other things since... Like the open window.... So we know that part was accurate
-
I can see both your points (I think).
- Rob's was that details can get lost in translation / cultural differences (which is a point I raised earlier as well).
- Alice's point is that most people are crap at estimations anyway (and that includes me, unless we're talking about estimating the weight of luggage lol).
From Jane's rog, the officer was trying to get Jane to estimate distance by comparing it to something (which is what I'd need). I don't know if the officer had that idea spontaneously, or whether that's part of their training.
4078 “How far away from you were they at the closest point?”
Reply “Phew, as, I mean, it’s hard to, sort of thing, but I think I was sort of halfway, it’s probably sort of five metres, I mean, I’m trying to sort of think in terms of this room, but sort of probably just further than that wall, probably sort of five to ten metres id’ say, if, I don’t know how far it is to there, but”.
4078 “I would say probably about, I am just guessing, but two and a half to three metres?”
Reply “Yeah, I’d probably say sort of five, five to ten metres, well probably five, nearer five”.
4078 “So about as far away again the other side of the wall as you are from this side?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, probably, yeah, sort of, as when I first, when I first saw them”.
4078 “I don’t know why I was looking over there, it’s like I was (inaudible)”.
Reply “I know. But, yeah, I’d say probably, and then obviously I was walking as they were walking, so it would have probably, I don’t know whether it would have gone less or, but, I mean, I wasn’t like staring, you know, it was sort of like a”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
This from a supposedly educated, professional person? Sheesh @)(++(*
-
They would have been paid, but it's not clear whether they were professional interpreters or not. Murat certainly wasn't (although no one seems to have had a complaint about a misunderstanding in his case).
My issue is that I, for one, have no idea how competent the lady was who intepreted Gerry's statement on 4 May. Perhaps she was, or perhaps she was just the first person who was available at short notice with a working knowledge of basic English, until things got a bit more organised.
IMO, some people seem to attach a huge amount of importance to the supposed discrepancies without taking into consideration the possibility that it was just a lost-in-translation/ confusion issue, which got rectified at the next interview anyway. Whether that's the case or not, perhaps we'll never know.
Some people seem to want to play down the importance of the discrepancies in the statements. Various suggestions have been made with the intention of either explaining them (witness trauma, forgetfulness, lack of sleep etc) or denying them (it was the interpreters fault)
The interesting question in my opinion is why they are so keen to dismiss certain evidence.
-
What I have said is we just do not know if there were errors... That could explain the inconsistencies
We know that the mccanns have said other things since... Like the open window.... So we know that part was accurate
Thank you. I look forward to seeing posts in future in which you make it clear the these alleged errors are not facts, just something that, in your opinion, might have occurred.
As to the open window, that is something we know the McCanns said, but there is a discrepancy between Kate's description of the curtains at the time and her description of them later.
-
Some people seem to want to play down the importance of the discrepancies in the statements. Various suggestions have been made with the intention of either explaining them (witness trauma, forgetfulness, lack of sleep etc) or denying them (it was the interpreters fault)
The interesting question in my opinion is why they are so keen to dismiss certain evidence.
I don't. When issues have arisen on either side, I've had a look at them and have just given my honest opinion. if I agree, I agree; if I don't, I don't. Simples.
-
What I have said is we just do not know if there were errors... That could explain the inconsistencies
We know that the mccanns have said other things since... Like the open window.... So we know that part was accurate
We also know what Alice has said a number of times, any errors, if any, are just as likely to be favourable to the McCanns as negative
-
This from a supposedly educated, professional person? Sheesh @)(++(*
I don't see the issue.
-
I don't see the issue.
Incoherence . Inability to finish a sentence, or in some cases, string two of them together.
-
I have found Jane's statement although you won't or can't. Why she would assume that Europeans would be able to convert feet and inches to metres I don't know. The onus was on Jane to be clear what she meant in my opinion.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
The egg head drawing was not made by the PJ, it was made by Simon Russell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/5982953/Madeleine-McCann-E-fits-of-suspects.html?image=10
Why anyone would suggest that the PJ were showing it to people I can't imagine.
Edited removed goading.
The drawing was produced by Simon Russell based on a drawing shown to him by the Policia Judiciaria.
Snip
Officers have not released any photofit or artist's impression of the suspected abductor.
But they have, apparently, shown a sketch like this to residents in Praia da Luz.
One of them was Simon Russell, 40, runs a video store and Internet cafe in the former fishing village.
"I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could you do?" he said.
He said the sketch was so simple it was easy for him to recreate, and it is Mr Russell's drawing that is used here.
He described it as looking like "an egg with a side parting".
The fact that such a virtually useless image is being used underlines claims that the Portuguese police are getting increasingly desperate.
"They have got absolutely nothing and are following up lines of inquiry which are barely credible," said a British police source familiar with the inquiry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html#ixzz54G3g8Kxt
-
Incoherence . Inability to finish a sentence, or in some cases, string two of them together.
She wasn't a public speaker.
An experiment: record a chat between two people and write down a transcript of it. ;) Seriously, try it, just for fun.
-
We also know what Alice has said a number of times, any errors, if any, are just as likely to be favourable to the McCanns as negative
That's Alice's opinion...
And IMO quite wrong
Translational errors will only produce inconsistencies... Which only produce doubt.. Imo
-
She wasn't a public speaker.
An experiment: record a chat between two people and write down a transcript of it. ;) Seriously, try it, just for fun.
She wasn't in a public speaking situation. This was a one to one conversion with a police officer.
-
We also know what Alice has said a number of times, any errors, if any, are just as likely to be favourable to the McCanns as negative
Yes, I can see that, but there's also context.
At the end of the day, you're judged on results (win or lose). Let's take athletes, as an example. Who is better, the athlete who has had the advantage of a huge professional training team and who wins; or the poor person who has had to train in almost impossible conditions, who did the very best in the circumstances, but who lost the race?
-
She wasn't in a public speaking situation. This was a one to one conversion with a police officer.
Precisely. Do try that experiment sometime, seriously.
-
She wasn't in a public speaking situation. This was a one to one conversion with a police officer.
We know that. This was the point.
-
We know that. This was the point.
What? That she becomes incoherent when speaking to the police?
-
The drawing was produced by Simon Russell based on a drawing shown to him by the Policia Judiciaria.
Snip
Officers have not released any photofit or artist's impression of the suspected abductor.
But they have, apparently, shown a sketch like this to residents in Praia da Luz.
One of them was Simon Russell, 40, runs a video store and Internet cafe in the former fishing village.
"I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could you do?" he said.
He said the sketch was so simple it was easy for him to recreate, and it is Mr Russell's drawing that is used here.
He described it as looking like "an egg with a side parting".
The fact that such a virtually useless image is being used underlines claims that the Portuguese police are getting increasingly desperate.
"They have got absolutely nothing and are following up lines of inquiry which are barely credible," said a British police source familiar with the inquiry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html#ixzz54G3g8Kxt
It's true that the PJ visited Mr Russell on 9th May. They did so because he contacted them with a story about seeing a car at 22.45 on 3rd May whose female driver he recognised. Yet another story pointing the police to Lagos Marina, it seems.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
Russell described the woman's partner as bald, so why the PJ would show him the drawing he produced I can't imagine. No-one else ever claimed to have seen it AFAIK. So who were the DM referring to?
they have, apparently, shown a sketch like this to residents in Praia da Luz.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html#ixzz54GC4rBQB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
-
Precisely. Do try that experiment sometime, seriously.
Another little experiment of mine:
There are 75 "can't remember" in Jane's rog. Next up is David with 47. 34 for Fiona. 26 for Dianne. There are 19 in Matt's rog and only 13 for Rachael. The least is Russell with 6.
3 in this reply.
4078 “And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?”
Reply “Erm, I can’t, I can’t remember, I mean, I, I can’t remember, well I can’t remember now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then some pink. That’s, that’s what I thought at the time. It’s harder because now I know what the pyjamas were so I can’t”.
-
She wasn't in a public speaking situation. This was a one to one conversion with a police officer.
It's an accurate transcript.... That is basically what all transcripts of recorded statements are like...absolutely normal... You just haven't heard one before... I have and it seems Carana has too
-
That's Alice's opinion...
And IMO quite wrong
Translational errors will only produce inconsistencies... Which only produce doubt.. Imo
OK then Ace, justify your opinion in a factual manner.
-
I didn't say it was.
I was saying that your analysis of "errors" in translation and the impact thereof is blx.
No offence intended.
You need to know how the information is used by the system.
It is there to be found .
You said originally: "It does not matter a toss. The average human being is crap at estimating time distance and mass whatever the units." What you say now has become personal.
-
What I have said is we just do not know if there were errors... That could explain the inconsistencies
We know that the mccanns have said other things since... Like the open window.... So we know that part was accurate
Yesterday I pointed out two places where Jane complained about translations problems, so it is a bit of a cop out to say "we just do not know if there were errors".
-
This from a supposedly educated, professional person? Sheesh @)(++(*
It gave a person's perception a chance of being tested for accuracy. It was OK.
-
Thank you. I look forward to seeing posts in future in which you make it clear the these alleged errors are not facts, just something that, in your opinion, might have occurred.
As to the open window, that is something we know the McCanns said, but there is a discrepancy between Kate's description of the curtains at the time and her description of them later.
It would be possible to subject the curtains to a reconstruction test - to see what movement is possible.
-
We also know what Alice has said a number of times, any errors, if any, are just as likely to be favourable to the McCanns as negative
But can that be proven?
-
Yesterday I pointed out two places where Jane complained about translations problems, so it is a bit of a cop out to say "we just do not know if there were errors".
You will have to provide a cite for that. I can’t see it in your posts yesterday?
-
Incoherence . Inability to finish a sentence, or in some cases, string two of them together.
That might be quite common in general conversation.
-
OK then Ace, justify your opinion in a factual manner.
As you gave your opinion first then you should justify your opinion first.... In a factual manner
-
What? That she becomes incoherent when speaking to the police?
What I notice about Jane's interview is the high level of frustration she has at being disbelieved by the press and the PJ. she has therefore become hesitant to repeat somethings IMO.
-
It's true that the PJ visited Mr Russell on 9th May. They did so because he contacted them with a story about seeing a car at 22.45 on 3rd May whose female driver he recognised. Yet another story pointing the police to Lagos Marina, it seems.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
Russell described the woman's partner as bald, so why the PJ would show him the drawing he produced I can't imagine. No-one else ever claimed to have seen it AFAIK. So who were the DM referring to?
they have, apparently, shown a sketch like this to residents in Praia da Luz.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html#ixzz54GC4rBQB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
Who are you talking about in this sentence. "Russell described the woman's partner as bald, so why the PJ would show him the drawing he produced I can't imagine. No-one else ever claimed to have seen it AFAIK. So who were the DM referring to?"
-
As you gave your opinion first then you should justify your opinion first.... In a factual manner
I did ; look back.
-
You will have to provide a cite for that. I can’t see it in your posts yesterday?
Will the post numbers do? Sometimes I say "yesterday" when for you it might still be "today" depending on time zones. I'm in Tuesday and you are still dealing with Monday.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9005.msg440738#msg440738
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9005.msg440747#msg440747
-
I did ; look back.
It is not only Davel that reads the forum. Please give a post number when referring to a previous post.
-
I did ; look back.
How far.... Best just give post number
-
This from a supposedly educated, professional person? Sheesh @)(++(*
Jane is a lovely person, but was she professional?
-
Jane is a lovely person, but was she professional?
to me she seems emotional, and frustrated, annoyed that she was doubted, but admits with all the subsequent discussion she can't isolate the memory of that night clearly away from her total awareness (accumulated memory it could be called).
-
Who are you talking about in this sentence. "Russell described the woman's partner as bald, so why the PJ would show him the drawing he produced I can't imagine. No-one else ever claimed to have seen it AFAIK. So who were the DM referring to?"
I am talking about Simon Russell. The PJ went to see him because he rang them with information bout a couple who used to work for his parents. He described the male as a bald man. I could understand the police showing him an e fit of a bald man if they had one, but it makes no sense for them to show him what he describes. Also, when they have shown witnesses an e fit they usually say so. In this report no e fit is mentioned by the PJ. Compare it with the PJ's visit to the Dolphin;
Being shown the portraits created as part of the investigation along with various photographs from the case file, she did not recognise the individual nor any similarity. With respect to the picture made by Jane Tanner, attached, she affirmed that the hair in the picture was similar to that of the individual she had seen, as referred to in this statement, such as the colour and the hairstyle. Also the build of the person in the picture appeared similar but she couldn't affirm it was the same person due the lack of facial features in the picture.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LIZELLE_MARAIS.htm
-
All those sceptics who question the umms and errs in the transcripts. ....how many other transcripts of police interviews have you seen... None I would think
-
All those sceptics who question the umms and errs in the transcripts. ....how many other transcripts of police interviews have you seen... None I would think
Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the toss, that we hadn't.
-
Who are you talking about in this sentence. "Russell described the woman's partner as bald, so why the PJ would show him the drawing he produced I can't imagine. No-one else ever claimed to have seen it AFAIK. So who were the DM referring to?"
which of the two options is correct please?
1. the PJ would show him (Simon Russell) the drawing he (Simon Russell) produced.
2. the PJ would show him (Simon Russell) the drawing she (Jane Tanner) produced
-
Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the toss, that we hadn't.
If you read the post you will see I've posted... I THINK..
I doubt you have seen s transcript too... Feel free to correct..
I have... My own... when interviewed under caution te a fraud case... My transcript is full of umms and errs...it's, quite normal in the situation
-
Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the toss, that we hadn't.
Well I agree with Alice on this one. For peace and tranquillity on the forum don't answer your own questions immediately.
Yet when I look at it again Alice seems to have done exactly the same. Asked a question and then offered a type of answer. Maybe we all make this mistake from time to time.
-
Well I agree with Alice on this one. For peace and tranquillity on the forum don't answer your own questions immediately.
Yet when I look at it again Alice seems to have done exactly the same. Asked a question and then offered a type of answer. Maybe we all make this mistake from time to time.
I didn't answer the question... Fact... So both you and Alice are wrong... I gave my opinion on what I thought the answer would be.. Both you and Alice need to read the post again
-
I didn't answer the question... Fact... So both you and Alice are wrong... I gave my opinion on what I thought the answer would be.. Both you and Alice need to read the post again
Whatever, ask a question and don't give your opinion till later. Let's try that.
-
Whatever, ask a question and don't give your opinion till later. Let's try that.
I'm quite free to give my opinion at any time I choose..surely expressing an opinion is not outside the rules
-
I'm quite free to give my opinion at any time I choose..surely expressing an opinion is not outside the rules
It wasn't a rule but "For peace and tranquillity on the forum" as I said earlier. Applies to everyone not just to you. even me!
-
It wasn't a rule but "For peace and tranquillity on the forum" as I said earlier. Applies to everyone not just to you. even me!
Then if it isn't a rule it does not apply to anyone.. I think the forum is running very smoothly...
-
Then if it isn't a rule it does not apply to anyone.. I think the forum is running very smoothly...
Not if what you do upsets Alice and makes her say things like this "Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the frigging toss, from a position of ignorance, that we hadn't.".
-
So has anyone who questions the umms and errs in the transcripts ever seen another transcript... I feel the answer to my question will be no....
Is that an unacceptable post
-
Not if what you do upsets Alice and makes her say things like this "Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the frigging toss, from a position of ignorance, that we hadn't.".
So I now must not post things which upset Alice... Even if they are within the rules... This is getting a touch ridiculous
-
Not if what you do upsets Alice and makes her say things like this "Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the frigging toss, from a position of ignorance, that we hadn't.".
The point is... I didn't answer the question myself
-
I didn't answer the question... Fact... So both you and Alice are wrong... I gave my opinion on what I thought the answer would be.. Both you and Alice need to read the post again
Even if you had Davel there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking a rhetorical question ... there is a literary term for it (hypophora) ... the question itself is used either to deny or make a point and doesn't really require an answer since that is usually obvious when thought about logically.
In my opinion your use of the English language is just fine.
-
Not if what you do upsets Alice and makes her say things like this "Why ask a question then answer it yourself?
Even if we said we had you would argue the frigging toss, from a position of ignorance, that we hadn't.".
I think the post by Alice was rude and goading yet you agree with it and have reposted it
-
So I now must not post things which upset Alice... Even if they are within the rules... This is getting a touch ridiculous
Did I say "must not"? Sorry if I did, but is just a suggestion.
The point is... I didn't answer the question myself
Well I thought you had even before Alice mentioned it. OK it might be an opinion FGS think about the forum and how it works.
-
Will the post numbers do? Sometimes I say "yesterday" when for you it might still be "today" depending on time zones. I'm in Tuesday and you are still dealing with Monday.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9005.msg440738#msg440738
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9005.msg440747#msg440747
The first one is your interpretation not Jane’s.
-
Did I say "must not"? Sorry if I did, but is just a suggestion.Well I thought you had even before Alice mentioned it. OK it might be an opinion FGS think about the forum and how it works.
I understand how the forum works... My post was reasonable... And I don't see why you are making such a fuss about it
-
I think the post by Alice was rude and goading yet you agree with it and have reposted it
I was looking at a way to prevent that.
I understand how the forum works... My post was reasonable... And I don't see why you are making such a fuss about it
I'm regretting it too now.
-
Did I say "must not"? Sorry if I did, but is just a suggestion.Well I thought you had even before Alice mentioned it. OK it might be an opinion FGS think about the forum and how it works.
As I have explained both you and Alice were wrong.. I didn't answer the question..and if it's an opinion both you and Alice need to add.. IMO... That's how the forum works
-
Enough.
-
which of the two options is correct please?
1. the PJ would show him (Simon Russell) the drawing he (Simon Russell) produced.
2. the PJ would show him (Simon Russell) the drawing she (Jane Tanner) produced
If the PJ had a drawing it would be in the files in my opinion.
-
If the PJ had a drawing it would be in the files in my opinion.
OK so why would you think that? There was that other lady who seemed to refer to the drawing. Why wouldn't you just accept that the PJ did not release this diagram?
-
So has anyone who questions the umms and errs in the transcripts ever seen another transcript... I feel the answer to my question will be no....
Is that an unacceptable post
I have seen transcripts of witness statements and they were much clearer than the T7's. It's not so much the umms and errs, it's the lack of clear concise answers that I have noticed. All DP had to say below was 'the door needed a key to get in and could be double-locked for extra security'
485 "How did it lock, and''
Reply "Yes.'
1485 "Was it secure''
Reply "Err you needed, yeah once the door was shut, you know you needed the keys to, you know to gain entry err into the apartment. Err I can't remember whether we ever had, you know whether you can deadlock it so that you could get in and out with the door open, but essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment so during the day time you know we left the key under the, the err there was a mat err outside, err you know that you wipe your feet on, and err you know that's, that's basically how we gained entry into it during the day time.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
OK so why would you think that? There was that other lady who seemed to refer to the drawing. Why wouldn't you just accept that the PJ did not release this diagram?
What other lady? Where is your evidence that the PJ withheld this evidence? Certain categories of evidence were withheld;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
I can think of no good reason to withhold something like that drawing though.
-
I have seen transcripts of witness statements and they were much clearer than the T7's. It's not so much the umms and errs, it's the lack of clear concise answers that I have noticed. All DP had to say below was 'the door needed a key to get in and could be double-locked for extra security'
485 "How did it lock, and''
Reply "Yes.'
1485 "Was it secure''
Reply "Err you needed, yeah once the door was shut, you know you needed the keys to, you know to gain entry err into the apartment. Err I can't remember whether we ever had, you know whether you can deadlock it so that you could get in and out with the door open, but essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment so during the day time you know we left the key under the, the err there was a mat err outside, err you know that you wipe your feet on, and err you know that's, that's basically how we gained entry into it during the day time.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Did the transcripts you saw, contain any.. Errs.
The rest is your opinion based on your personal dislike of the mccanns... Imo
-
What other lady? Where is your evidence that the PJ withheld this evidence? Certain categories of evidence were withheld;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
I can think of no good reason to withhold something like that drawing though.
#130 a post by you. "Being shown the portraits created as part of the investigation along with various photographs from the case file, she did not recognise the individual nor any similarity. With respect to the picture made by Jane Tanner, attached, she affirmed that the hair in the picture was similar to that of the individual she had seen, as referred to in this statement, such as the colour and the hairstyle. Also the build of the person in the picture appeared similar but she couldn't affirm it was the same person due the lack of facial features in the picture.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LIZELLE_MARAIS.htm " was that the egg head?
What did they do with the drawing by Jane Tanner the egg one? Did they throw it out?
"But they have, apparently, shown a sketch like this to residents in Praia da Luz.
One of them was Simon Russell, 40, runs a video store and Internet cafe in the former fishing village.
"I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could you do?" he said.
He said the sketch was so simple it was easy for him to recreate, and it is Mr Russell's drawing that is used here.
He described it as looking like "an egg with a side parting".
The fact that such a virtually useless image is being used underlines claims that the Portuguese police are getting increasingly desperate.
"They have got absolutely nothing and are following up lines of inquiry which are barely credible," said a British police source familiar with the inquiry.
Last night there were signs of tension between the Portuguese police and the British specialists who have flown out to help them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html#ixzz54KmtZPlc"
-
Did the transcripts you saw, contain any.. Errs.
The rest is your opinion based on your personal dislike of the mccanns... Imo
I had no difficulty in understanding them, I know that much. Their stories agreed on the important details too. Not bad considering they were giving evidence about what happened at a New Years Eve party and they had all been drinking. None of them were highly educated either.
I consider the rest of your post inaccurate, but I'm sure you know that.
-
I had no difficulty in understanding them, I know that much. Their stories agreed on the important details too. Not bad considering they were giving evidence about what happened at a New Years Eve party and they had all been drinking. None of them were highly educated either.
I consider the rest of your post inaccurate, but I'm sure you know that.
You still haven't answered the question are the.. Errs
No attempt to goad... Doesn't interest me.... The forum is totally different now.
I don't see anything odd at all re the transcripts... Absolutely normal imo
-
#130 a post by you. "Being shown the portraits created as part of the investigation along with various photographs from the case file, she did not recognise the individual nor any similarity. With respect to the picture made by Jane Tanner, attached, she affirmed that the hair in the picture was similar to that of the individual she had seen, as referred to in this statement, such as the colour and the hairstyle. Also the build of the person in the picture appeared similar but she couldn't affirm it was the same person due the lack of facial features in the picture.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LIZELLE_MARAIS.htm " was that the egg head?
What did they do with the drawing by Jane Tanner the egg one? Did they throw it out?
"But they have, apparently, shown a sketch like this to residents in Praia da Luz.
One of them was Simon Russell, 40, runs a video store and Internet cafe in the former fishing village.
"I smiled when they showed it to me. What else could you do?" he said.
He said the sketch was so simple it was easy for him to recreate, and it is Mr Russell's drawing that is used here.
He described it as looking like "an egg with a side parting".
The fact that such a virtually useless image is being used underlines claims that the Portuguese police are getting increasingly desperate.
"They have got absolutely nothing and are following up lines of inquiry which are barely credible," said a British police source familiar with the inquiry.
Last night there were signs of tension between the Portuguese police and the British specialists who have flown out to help them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453724/Revealed-The-police-e-fit-Madeleines-abductor-thats-egg-parting.html#ixzz54KmtZPlc"
No, it wasn't the egg head. If you follow the link you will see it. As far as I know Jane Tanner drew nothing.
-
No, it wasn't the egg head. If you follow the link you will see it. As far as I know Jane Tanner drew nothing.
i think at a latter stage she did the coloured picture of the man carrying the child. When the PJ had the second image maybe they destroyed the egg head one as it had been superseded.
-
Jane Tanner rogatory: "Reply “No, they didn’t, they didn’t take me, the only time I ever showed them where I saw it is when (inaudible), but the chap on the stairs here again, brought me back in the middle of the night from, erm, erm, from doing the sketch, so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning, erm, after coming, well about three o’clock in the morning after coming back from trying to do the egg with hair sketch, I said to him then. I said ‘Can I show you where I saw this person’, because the Press had all gone by that stage and the rest of the day there’d been obviously quite a lot of Press there, but they’d all gone. So I actually took him then and said, you know, ‘This is where, this is where I saw him’, but at that time in the night all the, all the, you know, I, I honestly can’t remember what I, you know, exactly what I said, but, but I just said I’d seen somebody and they just sort of wrote it down and that was, that was it really”.
4078 “Just to comment on the egg with hair sketch and I know what you are referring to because I think you have mentioned it to me before, but because of the lack of software they produced this image of”.
Reply “Yeah, they couldn’t do a face”."
I'm not saying who drew it but Jane was present when it was made.
-
i think at a latter stage she did the coloured picture of the man carrying the child. When the PJ had the second image maybe they destroyed the egg head one as it had been superseded.
Do you accept Jane had two attempts at doing an identikit picture of the man she saw?
-
JT rogatory: "4078 “It was a blank face, wasn’t it?”
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “With hair on?”
Reply “With just a bit of”.
4078 “And you refer to that as the egg with hair?”
Reply “That’s the egg with hair, yeah, sorry”.
4078 “Well I knew what it was but I thought somebody later on listening to this wouldn’t”.
Reply “Yeah. No, so that’s”.
-
Jane Tanner rogatory: "Reply “No, they didn’t, they didn’t take me, the only time I ever showed them where I saw it is when (inaudible), but the chap on the stairs here again, brought me back in the middle of the night from, erm, erm, from doing the sketch, so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning, erm, after coming, well about three o’clock in the morning after coming back from trying to do the egg with hair sketch, I said to him then. I said ‘Can I show you where I saw this person’, because the Press had all gone by that stage and the rest of the day there’d been obviously quite a lot of Press there, but they’d all gone. So I actually took him then and said, you know, ‘This is where, this is where I saw him’, but at that time in the night all the, all the, you know, I, I honestly can’t remember what I, you know, exactly what I said, but, but I just said I’d seen somebody and they just sort of wrote it down and that was, that was it really”.
4078 “Just to comment on the egg with hair sketch and I know what you are referring to because I think you have mentioned it to me before, but because of the lack of software they produced this image of”.
Reply “Yeah, they couldn’t do a face”."
I'm not saying who drew it but Jane was present when it was made.
How interesting. I wonder who the chap on the stairs was? I wonder when Jane was brought back at 3 in the morning? She kind of suggests it was 4th, but she went first in the morning and then Russell went later, presumably after she returned to see to the children. Did the PJ pick her up again after they brought him back? Why isn't any of this in the files?
-
How interesting. I wonder who the chap on the stairs was? I wonder when Jane was brought back at 3 in the morning? She kind of suggests it was 4th, but she went first in the morning and then Russell went later, presumably after she returned to see to the children. Did the PJ pick her up again after they brought him back? Why isn't any of this in the files?
Why not indeed?
However we have learned that not everything one would expect to see in the files is there but there are some things which we might not expect to see which are.
There is no doubt that the incident Jane described happened as she described it.
Isn't it lucky though that the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard have been working from all the information available to them using all the original files competently translated, as well as everything which has been added by the McCann detectives and others over the years.
-
One must trust that they have sorted the wheat from the chaff
-
One must trust that they have sorted the wheat from the chaff
I think OG came in to do it all over again.
-
I wonder how OG decided what they should check again and what they should take at face value ?
-
How interesting. I wonder who the chap on the stairs was? I wonder when Jane was brought back at 3 in the morning? She kind of suggests it was 4th, but she went first in the morning and then Russell went later, presumably after she returned to see to the children. Did the PJ pick her up again after they brought him back? Why isn't any of this in the files?
Jane says they couldn't do a face. I thought when the efit of Tannerman was released we were told it had no face because Jane hadn't seen it.
-
How interesting. I wonder who the chap on the stairs was? I wonder when Jane was brought back at 3 in the morning? She kind of suggests it was 4th, but she went first in the morning and then Russell went later, presumably after she returned to see to the children. Did the PJ pick her up again after they brought him back? Why isn't any of this in the files?
I'd assumed it was one of the PJ offficers who went to the UK during the rog sessions. Paiva, possibly? I'd thought of Bob Small as a possibility, but she seemed to remember him.
-
So I now must not post things which upset Alice... Even if they are within the rules... This is getting a touch ridiculous
You didn't post anything that upset me. I ceased to become upset in playgrounds decades ago.
Consider yourself corrected vis a vis transcripts.
Wrt my experience of such things, it is enough. [like the man said enough is enough]
_____________________________________________________________[line drawn under; tara a bit]
-
You didn't post anything that upset me. I ceased to become upset in playgrounds decades ago.
Consider yourself corrected vis a vis transcripts.
Wrt my experience of such things, it is enough. [like the man said enough is enough]
_____________________________________________________________[line drawn under; tara a bit]
I didn't say I had said, anything to upset you... Rob did... And made quite a meal of it..
Having given an under caution interview and seen the transcript.... Which contained quite, a, few... Errs... I don't feel that there is anyone on this forum in a position to correct me
Nothing strange about the rogs in the slightest... Imo
Shame the Portuguese statements we're not taken in a, similar professional manner... Imo
-
Right, now where were we? lol
Translation errors of critical relevance...
-
Right, now where were we? lol
Translation errors of critical relevance...
Of which there appears to be no evidence.
-
Of which there appears to be evidence.
So you agree, there is evidence
-
Right, now where were we? lol
Translation errors of critical relevance...
Don't tempt me..... ?{)(**
But in the interests of furthering the debate [if that's the right word] I has two items.
Item 1
There are two types of transcripts from police tapes.
1 Verbatim where every utterance from either end of both interviewer and interviewee is recorded.
2 Semi-verbatim where every utterance from either end of the interviewee is transcribed then the transcriber tries to guess what the interviewer meant and writes down a precis of it that is supposed to make life easier for the reader.
Item 2
A little game that does have relevance.
Translator #1 wrote:
A padronização do comprimento é efetuada pelo uso de guias judaicas
Translator #2 wrote
A padronização do comprimento é efetuada pelo uso deslizamentos de judeus
Translator #3 wrote
A padronização do comprimento é alcançada com o uso de botijo de jew
Q1 What did the speaker say in English?
Q2 Where did the speaker come from?
-
I didn't say I had said, anything to upset you... Rob did... And made quite a meal of it..
Having given an under caution interview and seen the transcript.... Which contained quite, a, few... Errs... I don't feel that there is anyone on this forum in a position to correct me
Nothing strange about the rogs in the slightest... Imo
Shame the Portuguese statements we're not taken in a, similar professional manner... Imo
I am in a position to correct you about this "I doubt you have seen s transcript too... Feel free to correct".. aimed at me in your post 134.
Unless of course you wish to go thro' a dodgy syntax cos I'm posting from mi phone while being mega busy doing other things and the usual slippery as a bucket of eels haraz.
-
I am in a position to correct you about this "I doubt you have seen s transcript too... Feel free to correct".. aimed at me in your post 134.
Unless of course you wish to go thro' a dodgy syntax cos I'm posting from mi phone while being mega busy doing other things and the usual slippery as a bucket of eels haraz.
So in what circumstances have you seen a, transcript of an interview under caution.... It's quite unusual to see one
-
So you agree, there is evidence
No, just finger trouble.
-
So in what circumstances have you seen a, transcript of an interview under caution.... It's quite unusual to see one
Why under caution? The rog. interviews weren't under caution.
-
How interesting. I wonder who the chap on the stairs was? I wonder when Jane was brought back at 3 in the morning? She kind of suggests it was 4th, but she went first in the morning and then Russell went later, presumably after she returned to see to the children. Did the PJ pick her up again after they brought him back? Why isn't any of this in the files?
The whole story is news to me as well. You have obviously have done more research than me, been here longer etc.
-
No, just finger trouble.
So you can see how easy it could be To say the wrong thing when being interviewed by the police... Very easy to get yourself locked up
-
Jane says they couldn't do a face. I thought when the efit of Tannerman was released we were told it had no face because Jane hadn't seen it.
There are some people who look at a person and notice lots of detail about their clothing. Jane is one of those persons, clothing is more important than the face. But to me you can go home and change your clothes but a bit harder to change your face.
But I'm hopeless at that too.
-
No, just finger trouble.
Can you define for the forum what "finger trouble" is please?
-
1), So in what circumstances have you seen a, transcript of an interview under caution.... It's quite unusual to see one
Where did I say under caution?
Are you trying to imply the T7 interviews were under caution?
In asnwer to 1: very unusual ones
-
Why under caution? The rog. interviews weren't under caution.
No they weren't... In the uk witness statements are often not taped.... But those under caution are
It's, interesting they were taped and I suppose the pj wanted accuracy.. Not a non verbatim summary
-
So you can see how easy it could be To say the wrong thing when being interviewed by the police... Very easy to get yourself locked up
I suppose if they had been writing their statements on there mobiles?
-
No they weren't... In the uk witness statements are often not taped.... But those under caution are
It's, interesting they were taped and I suppose the pj wanted accuracy.. Not a non verbatim summary
I'm not certain if they were or not. They'd got a "letter", but I haven't found much more than allusions at the beginning of the interviews. That may not have been much more than an invitation to be interviews on behalf of the PT authorities and, possibly (and I'm speculating based on a few comments in the rogs) that they would be part of the PJ files and therefore could be made public.
I presume that some measures had to be taken as the rogs were, by definition, undertaken on behalf of a foreign authority and would have had to be legally viable as evidence if required.
As far as I can work out, at least some of the people that the UK wanted the PJ to interview had arguido status - yet I can't find any provision for that scenario in the legal code at the time. It's possible that some simply requested it in order to have a lawyer present in an advisory capacity and that the status ended (which isn't normally the case in a PT investigation).
-
I suppose if they had been writing their statements on there mobiles?
I think the point has been made
-
Don't tempt me..... ?{)(**
But in the interests of furthering the debate [if that's the right word] I has two items.
Item 1
There are two types of transcripts from police tapes.
1 Verbatim where every utterance from either end of both interviewer and interviewee is recorded.
2 Semi-verbatim where every utterance from either end of the interviewee is transcribed then the transcriber tries to guess what the interviewer meant and writes down a precis of it that is supposed to make life easier for the reader.
Item 2
A little game that does have relevance.
Translator #1 wrote:
A padronização do comprimento é efetuada pelo uso de guias judaicas
Translator #2 wrote
A padronização do comprimento é efetuada pelo uso deslizamentos de judeus
Translator #3 wrote
A padronização do comprimento é alcançada com o uso de botijo de jew
Q1 What did the speaker say in English?
Q2 Where did the speaker come from?
Not sure what you're getting at Alice.
The UK rogs were verbatim (both of interviewer and interviewee). Presumably some admin staff was tasked with wading through the recording and typing up every utterance.
The PT statements weren't verbatim at all (and therefore don't fit into your Item 1, point 2 category.)
My impression (not sure how often one has to repeat IMO) is that in the early days at least, it would have been the
interviewing officer typing up the report as the answers to his / her questions came through via the interpreter.
Many statements include phrases of the type (paraphrasing) "Questioned, the witness stated...".
-
Not sure what you're getting at Alice.
The UK rogs were verbatim (both of interviewer and interviewee). Presumably some admin staff was tasked with wading through the recording and typing up every utterance.
The PT statements weren't verbatim at all (and therefore don't fit into your Item 1, point 2 category.)
My impression (not sure how often one has to repeat IMO) is that in the early days at least, it would have been the
interviewing officer typing up the report as the answers to his / her questions came through via the interpreter.
Many statements include phrases of the type (paraphrasing) "Questioned, the witness stated...".
I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.
The other bit is about how confusion may be sown without really trying.
In my example what all three translators/interpreters should have written/said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slip gauges [block gauges would have been an acceptable alternative].
Slip gauges aka, block gauges, Johanssen's gauges, Jo-blocks and in the NE Jo-slips.
What the interviewee would have said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jo-slips. [the use of the term makes him from the NE in all probablity]
In the NE when some one says "Jo" you hear something like "Jew".
So the interpreter hears: "The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jew-slips"....off it goes!
Then you need something like an 80 year old Geordie machine tool fitter to unravel it for you.
Googlish version of what the interpreter thought he heard.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jewish guides.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slips of Jews.
Standardisation of length is achieved with the use of jew bottle.
-
I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.
The other bit is about how confusion may be sown without really trying.
In my example what all three translators/interpreters should have written/said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slip gauges [block gauges would have been an acceptable alternative].
Slip gauges aka, block gauges, Johanssen's gauges, Jo-blocks and in the NE Jo-slips.
What the interviewee would have said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jo-slips. [the use of the term makes him from the NE in all probablity]
In the NE when some one says "Jo" you hear something like "Jew".
So the interpreter hears: "The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jew-slips"....off it goes!
Then you need something like an 80 year old Geordie machine tool fitter to unravel it for you.
Googlish version of what the interpreter thought he heard.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jewish guides.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slips of Jews.
Standardisation of length is achieved with the use of jew bottle.
Whoever listens to the tapes in order to transcribe them may hesitate about what they'd actually heard, or thought they'd heard even after checking with someone else if necessary. No problem there. We're only human.
The PJ statements are, IMO, in a different category. They involve a three-way process and are just a summary... at the end of the day, of what the inspector writes downs, via what he/ she thinks they've understood via an "interpreter" in an emergency situation.
It wasn't a court-room setting, but trying to work out the basic facts to help the search.
I really think that context matters, even if no one else does. IMO.
-
Whoever listens to the tapes in order to transcript them may hesitate about what they'd actually heard, or thought they'd heard even after checking with someone else if necessary. No problem there. We're only human.
The PJ statements are, IMO, in a different category. They involve a three-way process and are just a summary... at the end of the day, of what the inspector writes downs, via what he/ she thinks they've understood via an "interpreter" in an emergency situation.
It wasn't a court-room setting, but trying to work out the basic facts to help the search.
I really think that context matters, even if no one else does. IMO.
The interviewing officer clarifies points as the conversation progresses, and there must be people checking the sound track as well for the officer leaves the room and consults with others over certain points. In a properly run rogatory as we saw with the UK rogatories generally there doesn't seem to be many ambiguities.
There were problems with the video recording and some had to repeat the process. (OK I am left uncertain as to what we ended up with, especially with Russell's rogatory.)
With Russell - I think we end up with the 10th April statement with a huge amount of comment about the notes taken from the 8th.
-
With Matt there were also technical problems and it appears part of the interview was not recorded.
"At 14:14 hours on Wednesday 9th April 2008 I was present at an interview suite at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters when I commenced a recorded interview with the witness Matthew OLDFIELD. The interview ceased at 14:51 hours.
This interview was recorded onto DVD and a master copy and a working copy were produced.
(Page 1)
I produce the master copy of this DVD as exhibit reference S.V.F.119 and the working copy as exhibit reference S.V.F.120
Technical problems were experienced during this interview and no data was recorded."
Was this part of the interview repeated?
-
Matt: "On Wednesday, 9th April 2008, between 14:14 hours and 14:51 hours I was interviewed by Detective FERGUSON at Leicestershire Police Headquarters. As a result of a technical problem this interview did not record. I was then re-interviewed by DC FERGUSON between 15:18 hours and 15:38 hours. I am able to state that what I said during that interview is an accurate account of my evidence."
So it was repeated.
-
I think the point has been made
Definitely...
-
I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.
The other bit is about how confusion may be sown without really trying.
In my example what all three translators/interpreters should have written/said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slip gauges [block gauges would have been an acceptable alternative].
Slip gauges aka, block gauges, Johanssen's gauges, Jo-blocks and in the NE Jo-slips.
What the interviewee would have said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jo-slips. [the use of the term makes him from the NE in all probablity]
In the NE when some one says "Jo" you hear something like "Jew".
So the interpreter hears: "The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jew-slips"....off it goes!
Then you need something like an 80 year old Geordie machine tool fitter to unravel it for you.
Googlish version of what the interpreter thought he heard.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jewish guides.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slips of Jews.
Standardisation of length is achieved with the use of jew bottle.
I get your general point, and I guess we're coming at this from different angles, but are there any major bones of contention re the UK rogs?
Only one comes to my mind for the moment and that's in Jane's rog re Murat (the phrase in question is in bold). For me, it's an issue with the chatty style of the interview as they sometimes interrupt each other. and where I find the transcription could have benefited from, e.g, "..." to indicate that a phrase was interrupted (if ever that's the case in this instance).
And, yet again, I find context important. Just reading the preceding sentences, and the bold bit, it could sound as if she was convinced that it was Murat that she'd seen that night. Some people may genuinely interpret it that way; others have a habit of taking comments out of context for their own reasons.
IMO, when I took into account the style of the interview, the numerous mutual interruptions, the fact that she'd already stated that she didn't think it was Murat, etc., my conclusion is that it's unlikely that "I just thought it was" refers to the idea that she thought it was Murat, but rather an explanation as to why she contacted Bob Small (because some of the others were convinced that he was the person they'd seen that night).
Is it crucial? No. Unless, of course, Murat had faced a C-case-type trial (the one I'm not supposed to mention on here) and everything was taken literally and the last bit of juice squeezed out of anything that could sound negative.
Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “Because I took it seriously”.
4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
Reply “No”.
4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078 “Truth to what happened that night”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.
Reply “No, it was”.
4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”?
Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.
4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”?
Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.
I'd have to try to double-check on PT law re that, but you could be right.
If that's the case, and if the UK police had simply wanted to do the minimum according to PT standards, I suppose they could have simply handed over the CDs.
I presume that LP have staff who are used to this, the rogs were in their own language and they'd be used to working out which words they'd heard pronounced in various accents.
-
I get your general point, and I guess we're coming at this from different angles, but are there any major bones of contention re the UK rogs?
Only one comes to my mind for the moment and that's in Jane's rog re Murat (the phrase in question is in bold). For me, it's an issue with the chatty style of the interview as they sometimes interrupt each other. and where I find the transcription could have benefited from, e.g, "..." to indicate that a phrase was interrupted (if ever that's the case in this instance).
And, yet again, I find context important. Just reading the preceding sentences, and the bold bit, it could sound as if she was convinced that it was Murat that she'd seen that night. Some people may genuinely interpret it that way; others have a habit of taking comments out of context for their own reasons.
IMO, when I took into account the style of the interview, the numerous mutual interruptions, the fact that she'd already stated that she didn't think it was Murat, etc., my conclusion is that it's unlikely that "I just thought it was" refers to the idea that she thought it was Murat, but rather an explanation as to why she contacted Bob Small (because some of the others were convinced that he was the person they'd seen that night).
Is it crucial? No. Unless, of course, Murat had faced a C-case-type trial (the one I'm not supposed to mention on here) and everything was taken literally and the last bit of juice squeezed out of anything that could sound negative.
Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “Because I took it seriously”.
4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
Reply “No”.
4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078 “Truth to what happened that night”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.
Reply “No, it was”.
4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”?
Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.
4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”?
Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
I totally agree Carana. It is because the typist has put a full stop instead of a line of dots (which would have indicated an unfinished sentence) - that makes it look like a full sentence. There are several other instances of this 'error' by the typist where it is even more obvious that it is an unfinished sentence and not a full one. In fact according to the typist JT's very next reply ended with the word.... ''and'.
Quote
snip ............ let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
End quote
Here's another example from further on down.
Quote
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
End quote
IMO
-
Jane on the whole seems in quite an emotional state. There are multiple unfinished sentences and ideas.
-
Jane on the whole seems in quite an emotional state. There are multiple unfinished sentences and ideas.
She'd been hammered in the media for ages with all sorts of insinuations. I would have been emotional as well.
-
She'd been hammered in the media for ages with all sorts of insinuations. I would have been emotional as well.
She was also convinced she had seen Madeleine's kidnap, which must have been hard to live with despite at the time she couldn't have had a clue as to what was happening.
-
She was also convinced she had seen Madeleine's kidnap, which must have been hard to live with despite at the time she couldn't have had a clue as to what was happening.
If her account is genuine, and IMO it is after having waded through what I've been able to find beyond the tabloid crap... yes.
-
She was also convinced she had seen Madeleine's kidnap, which must have been hard to live with despite at the time she couldn't have had a clue as to what was happening.
Is she convinced or always in two minds over the issue?
-
I get your general point, and I guess we're coming at this from different angles, but are there any major bones of contention re the UK rogs?
Only one comes to my mind for the moment and that's in Jane's rog re Murat (the phrase in question is in bold). For me, it's an issue with the chatty style of the interview as they sometimes interrupt each other. and where I find the transcription could have benefited from, e.g, "..." to indicate that a phrase was interrupted (if ever that's the case in this instance).
And, yet again, I find context important. Just reading the preceding sentences, and the bold bit, it could sound as if she was convinced that it was Murat that she'd seen that night. Some people may genuinely interpret it that way; others have a habit of taking comments out of context for their own reasons.
IMO, when I took into account the style of the interview, the numerous mutual interruptions, the fact that she'd already stated that she didn't think it was Murat, etc., my conclusion is that it's unlikely that "I just thought it was" refers to the idea that she thought it was Murat, but rather an explanation as to why she contacted Bob Small (because some of the others were convinced that he was the person they'd seen that night).
Is it crucial? No. Unless, of course, Murat had faced a C-case-type trial (the one I'm not supposed to mention on here) and everything was taken literally and the last bit of juice squeezed out of anything that could sound negative.
Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “Because I took it seriously”.
4078 “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
Reply “No”.
4078 “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
Reply “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078 “Yes”.
Reply “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078 “Truth to what happened that night”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.
Reply “No, it was”.
4078 “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “That’s genuinely was something at the time”?
Reply “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.
4078 “Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”?
Reply “Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Yep!
Within a gnats doodah they are 12 months after the event.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/
-
Yep!
Within a gnats doodah they are 12 months after the event.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/
Don't forget to eat your dictionary before reading that article!
-
Don't forget to eat your dictionary before reading that article!
I went down the local B****r The King and had a "Roger's Brontosaurus" Burger instead.
-
Yep!
Within a gnats doodah they are 12 months after the event.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143501/
Yes, false memory is always a possibility, except that there quite a few instances where Jane says she's trying to separate her memory of what she'd seen from what she later found out. If anything, IMO, false recall / suggestibility could be a factor for those who were convinced that Murat was around that night. Ironically, Jane wasn't one of them.
I've just moved links to an article / video to the new thread on false memory syndrome.
-
Jane on the whole seems in quite an emotional state. There are multiple unfinished sentences and ideas.
Yes why would someone add on their ideas? did anyone ask for them? she seems to be trying to make a story fit as she feels she isn't confident in her conversations! And be unable to complete a sentence? I suspect trying not to say something she didn't want say by accident.
There is no other explanation because IF she did see someone at the top of the road carrying a child then there is nothing to fear from saying just that. However, trying to persuade people this person was abducting a friends child is quite a different story indeed!
-
Yes why would someone add on their ideas? did anyone ask for them? she seems to be trying to make a story fit as she feels she isn't confident in her conversations! And be unable to complete a sentence? I suspect trying not to say something she didn't want say by accident.
There is no other explanation because IF she did see someone at the top of the road carrying a child then there is nothing to fear from saying just that. However, trying to persuade people this person was abducting a friends child is quite a different story indeed!
Who said she was afraid?
-
Who said she was afraid?
Well since we are trying to get Jane and her abductor idea off the hook here, I felt I should add to the mix that she had absolutely no reason to be incoherent and ranting,not completing sentences,offering ideas, when asked simple questions, I suggest she was trying to answer one way when thinking a completely different way. Do try that exercise... It isn't easy.
We are constantly reminded on this very forum, that these are articulate ,intelligent people...
Yeah but no but yeah but no but..
*sN.....s*
-
Well since we are trying to get Jane and her abductor idea off the hook here, I felt I should add to the mix that she had absolutely no reason to be incoherent and ranting,not completing sentences,offering ideas, when asked simple questions, I suggest she was trying to answer one way when thinking a completely different way. Do try that exercise... It isn't easy.
We are constantly reminded on this very forum, that these are articulate ,intelligent people...
Yeah but no but yeah but no but..
*sN.....s*
My view is different - it just sounds like a somewhat chatty interview (as opposed to a prepared speech). Reducing stress is one of the factors that UK police now use (whether the interviewee is a victim, a witness or a potential suspect).
Same #6 post from here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9018.0
-
I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.
-
I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.
I didn't get that impression about Jane. Emotional yes, but I don't see anything odd about that in the circumstances.
-
Jane's story regarding Wednesday 2nd differs considerably from everyone else's. She had no recollection of it raining and thought she had her tennis lesson as usual, followed by Madeleine and Ella's tennis lesson. She says Russell went to dinner at 20.35, but Jes Wilkins said he arrived with Gerry 20 minutes before that. I don't think we can blame the interpreter for those anomalies.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
She tells the same story in her rog. too;
Actually that morning was the morning Ella and Madeleine had the tennis lesson I think on the Wednesday. You’ve got the picture of…”
4078 “Yeah.”
Reply “Err so after the, would it be the Wednesday, after our tennis lesson they all came down so we did stay and watch them for a bit,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.
Have you noticed there are times the police interviewer refers to a prior off the record discussion that Jane had? I think there was a lot of effort to make Jane feel comfortable.
-
Yes why would someone add on their ideas? did anyone ask for them? she seems to be trying to make a story fit as she feels she isn't confident in her conversations! And be unable to complete a sentence? I suspect trying not to say something she didn't want say by accident.
There is no other explanation because IF she did see someone at the top of the road carrying a child then there is nothing to fear from saying just that. However, trying to persuade people this person was abducting a friends child is quite a different story indeed!
Jane to me is being very honest even going slightly against the McCann point of view. She never tries to make out it was Madeleine, or that Madeleine was abducted via the open window. She explains how the post event information has altered her memory. Even to be aware that your memory has been altered is rather unique.
She didn't just ID Robert Murat even though it would have been easy to say Yes it was him. It is the others who use her observation and make the abduction story out of it, the telling of that was affecting her memory of a possible innocent observation.
-
Jane to me is being very honest even going slightly against the McCann point of view. She never tries to make out it was Madeleine, or that Madeleine was abducted via the open window. She explains how the post event information has altered her memory. Even to be aware that your memory has been altered is rather unique.
She didn't just ID Robert Murat even though it would have been easy to say Yes it was him. It is the others who use her observation and make the abduction story out of it, the telling of that was affecting her memory of a possible innocent observation.
I agree that it does sound as if she was aware of the danger of false memories. Perhaps whoever gave her the cognitive interview explained the purpose of it.
-
Have you noticed there are times the police interviewer refers to a prior off the record discussion that Jane had? I think there was a lot of effort to make Jane feel comfortable.
The question arising is why LP should go to such lengths. All they were required to do was ask the witnesses the questions the PJ sent through.
-
The question arising is why LP should go to such lengths. All they were required to do was ask the witnesses the questions the PJ sent through.
Did Jane have to answer questions? Did she have to speak? Maybe it was obvious to LP that Jane was not going to cooperate without some sort of assurance.
-
The Rogatory Statements were voluntary.
-
The question arising is why LP should go to such lengths. All they were required to do was ask the witnesses the questions the PJ sent through.
Quite a few of the rog requests include a statement to the effect of "and any other questions deemed relevant".
I don't see any harm in running through everything they could while they had the opportunity, trying to clarify anything that might have got garbled, seeing if there was any extra information, and what not.
-
Quite a few of the rog requests include a statement to the effect of "and any other questions deemed relevant".
I don't see any harm in running through everything they could while they had the opportunity, trying to clarify anything that might have got garbled, seeing if there was any extra information, and what not.
I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.
-
I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.
We get small clues as to what was discussed. We could list them and see if there is a pattern.
-
I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.
And they added "and any other relevant questions" to the end quite often. So that leaves it pretty open. If they'd just asked the PJ questions, there may well have been very short answers, if they could remember at all. At least it was an opportunity to take them back in time, get clarification and any other details of potential interest.
-
I see no harm in being friendly and encouraging, but I'm not sure about discussing evidence off the record. It was up to those with the lead in the investigation to decide what was relevant and what wasn't.
But of course in the UK the PJ had no power... No difference from civilians, is the term often used
-
I would suggest that Jane and probably the others as well was very much outside her comfort zone when making this statement.
Oh I think they rapidly became outside the comfort zone!
-
Oh I think they rapidly became outside the comfort zone!
Could you quote a paragraph from a rogatory which confirms that to you?
-
But of course in the UK the PJ had no power... No difference from civilians, is the term often used
Once a request for mutual legal assistance has been agreed by the Home Office then that assistance should be provided by those given the job. The job was to ask certain people certain questions and record their answers. It wasn't to have pre-interview discussions with the witnesses. I can imagine the fuss if it was discovered that the PJ had off the record discussions with the people OG wanted interviewed in Portugal. In my opinion that would have been seen as highly suspicious and irregular.
-
Once a request for mutual legal assistance has been agreed by the Home Office then that assistance should be provided by those given the job. The job was to ask certain people certain questions and record their answers. It wasn't to have pre-interview discussions with the witnesses. I can imagine the fuss if it was discovered that the PJ had off the record discussions with the people OG wanted interviewed in Portugal. In my opinion that would have been seen as highly suspicious and irregular.
I'm not quite sure how that fits into the topic thread of translation errors...
Are you saying that LP shouldn't have used the UK police's years of experience in eliciting information in the least stressful manner possible while the opportunity was there? And that they shouldn't have used the invitation offered by the PJ to feel free to ask any other questions that they deemed potentially useful?
The "off-record" (informal) chats could have been over a cup of tea, introducing themselves, getting their full contact details, putting them at ease and whatever else.
Many may have been pissed off at the PJ "leaks", general handling and may have wanted to blow off a bit of steam prior to the official recordings. In the general interest of diplomacy and avoiding OT rants in the official recordings, there may have been a good reason to let them let off a bit of steam beforehand, IMO.
And it's not clear from the rogs whether the PJ officers were also able to listen in to the "off-record" chats in any case - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't.
-
Well since we are trying to get Jane and her abductor idea off the hook here, I felt I should add to the mix that she had absolutely no reason to be incoherent and ranting,not completing sentences,offering ideas, when asked simple questions, I suggest she was trying to answer one way when thinking a completely different way. Do try that exercise... It isn't easy.
We are constantly reminded on this very forum, that these are articulate ,intelligent people...
Yeah but no but yeah but no but..
*sN.....s*
It's perfectly normal for people not only to umm and arrh during conversations, but also to talk over and be talked over by other people and not finish sentences. Anyone sitting in and observing would not notice anything strange at all IMO. It's only because we are not used to reading 'verbatim statements' that different impressions to those obtained by hearing convos occur - as stuff we wouldn't normally notice now stands out like a sore thumb because it's in writing. IMO
If we were used to reading verbatim accounts of interviews between all manner of intelligent articulate people on TV for instance - no-one would be questioning the verbatim rog. statements in this way imo.
AIMHO
-
Could you quote a paragraph from a rogatory which confirms that to you?
No.
I think = my opinion.
In the rogatory interviews c.f Jane Tanner's rogatory interview with her two previous interviews with PJ.
Spaced out at 1 day 7days and 343(+/-) days. It does not confirm but sets bells off in mi 'ead.
-
Once a request for mutual legal assistance has been agreed by the Home Office then that assistance should be provided by those given the job. The job was to ask certain people certain questions and record their answers. It wasn't to have pre-interview discussions with the witnesses. I can imagine the fuss if it was discovered that the PJ had off the record discussions with the people OG wanted interviewed in Portugal. In my opinion that would have been seen as highly suspicious and irregular.
The UK police have the power to act as they see fit in the uk... If that involves a pre interview chat that's up to them
-
The UK police have the power to act as they see fit in the uk... If that involves a pre interview chat that's up to them
How the police conduct themselves is up to them, but if they are less than transparent then it's acceptable to wonder why in my opinion.
-
How the police conduct themselves is up to them, but if they are less than transparent then it's acceptable to wonder why in my opinion.
Transparent to whom? To the general public? Is there anything credible to suggest that there may or may not have been informal discussions between the police forces as to how best handle this?
-
A reminder to all posters that appropriate language should be used when commenting. Far too many posts still require moderator intervention so please consider carefully what you post. It is always useful to deploy the preview option before making your comments public.
I do not want to stifle debate but if individual members continue to flaunt our rules I will intercede.
Duty Admin
-
No.
I think = my opinion.
In the rogatory interviews c.f Jane Tanner's rogatory interview with her two previous interviews with PJ.
Spaced out at 1 day 7days and 343(+/-) days. It does not confirm but sets bells off in mi 'ead.
Why? It doesn't for me.
Before her rog, I wasn't aware of this undercover surveillance operation, nor her version of the circumstances surrounding it.
Prior to reading her rog, I'd also thought that she'd kept changing her mind - as that was how the pro-PJ media (largely copied by the UK tabloids) was presenting her.
Once I did read her account in her rog, I found that I had a clearer idea (at least from her version of events).
Until then, I couldn't work out what problem with "eggman" was about.
The only allusion to that covert surveillance operation that I can find in the PJ statements is this:
Questioned, she reaffirms that she doesn't have any suspicion to put forward - other than the individual referred to as carrying a child in his arms - she doesn't recall any detail or situation that might be related to the disappearance of small MBM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
Personally, I find that the rogs offered an opportunity to clarify all sorts of things (even if only from their perspective).
If anyone had deliberately lied, the PJ might have had new leads to go on. I really don't see why the UK approach was in any way inappropriate. On the contrary.
-
No.
I think = my opinion.
In the rogatory interviews c.f Jane Tanner's rogatory interview with her two previous interviews with PJ.
Spaced out at 1 day 7days and 343(+/-) days. It does not confirm but sets bells off in mi 'ead.
I was more interested in seeing how you think, why you think etc if I think = IMO. If you say "Oh I think they rapidly became outside the comfort zone!" I would have liked to know why you think that.
-
Why? It doesn't for me.
Before her rog, I wasn't aware of this undercover surveillance operation, nor her version of the circumstances surrounding it.
Prior to reading her rog, I'd also thought that she'd kept changing her mind - as that was how the pro-PJ media (largely copied by the UK tabloids) was presenting her.
Once I did read her account in her rog, I found that I had a clearer idea (at least from her version of events).
Until then, I couldn't work out what problem with "eggman" was about.
The only allusion to that covert surveillance operation that I can find in the PJ statements is this:
Questioned, she reaffirms that she doesn't have any suspicion to put forward - other than the individual referred to as carrying a child in his arms - she doesn't recall any detail or situation that might be related to the disappearance of small MBM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
Personally, I find that the rogs offered an opportunity to clarify all sorts of things (even if only from their perspective).
If anyone had deliberately lied, the PJ might have had new leads to go on. I really don't see why the UK approach was in any way inappropriate. On the contrary.
I think we are wandering off topic a bit. None the less in respose:
On the 8th April 2008, according to her letters rogatory statement Ms Tanner was satisfied that the man she saw was not Robert Murat.
On the 4th and 10th May 2007 when interviewed by the PJ she says she didn't really see much except the man in profile apparently not wearing spectacles but dressed like a local would be for the weather at the time of year. She didn’t really pay the sighting much “no never mind” until she discovered MBM was missing then thought she could have witnessed an abduction being carried out by a bloke with a blank face no spectacles [yes I have heard of contact lenses but some of us choose not to use them] whom she will recognise only by his profile and GISS.
In between time, between 4th May 2007 and 10th May 2007 we have Lori Campbell phoning LP reporting Mr Murat of what in her opinion was suspicious behaviour then 10th May 2007 and 8th April 2008 we have the surveillance incident and Melissa Little’s sketches.
The rogatory interview makes reference to surveillance of Murat but not by/at the instigation of whom.
Given that Ms Tanner was convinced the man she saw was not Mr Murat what was all that haraz about other than Mr Murat being an easy target for the baser press with readers who have even baser instincts?
Who if anyone was pulling the chain?
Or is all another set of random events?
-
I think we are wandering off topic a bit. None the less in respose:
On the 8th April 2008, according to her letters rogatory statement Ms Tanner was satisfied that the man she saw was not Robert Murat.
On the 4th and 10th May 2007 when interviewed by the PJ she says she didn't really see much except the man in profile apparently not wearing spectacles but dressed like a local would be for the weather at the time of year. She didn’t really pay the sighting much “no never mind” until she discovered MBM was missing then thought she could have witnessed an abduction being carried out by a bloke with a blank face no spectacles [yes I have heard of contact lenses but some of us choose not to use them] whom she will recognise only by his profile and GISS.
In between time, between 4th May 2007 and 10th May 2007 we have Lori Campbell phoning LP reporting Mr Murat of what in her opinion was suspicious behaviour then 10th May 2007 and 8th April 2008 we have the surveillance incident and Melissa Little’s sketches.
The rogatory interview makes reference to surveillance of Murat but not by/at the instigation of whom.
Given that Ms Tanner was convinced the man she saw was not Mr Murat what was all that haraz about other than Mr Murat being an easy target for the baser press with readers who have even baser instincts?
Who if anyone was pulling the chain?
Or is all another set of random events?
Yes, I agree, but I'm still not sure what "sends bells ringing"? Re Jane, or the media, or both?
Murat was very much present as of 4 May offering his help. Lori may have had the Soham murders in mind at the time. Jane had stated that she'd seen a man that night... and that led to the whole chain of events.
I don't see it as any more complicated than that.
-
To get more or less back on topic.
What errors were there?
Were they translation errors?
Were some due to interpreting? If so, how could that be verified?
Were some due to lost-in-confusion / cultural differences?
And are they critical? If so, in what way and to whom? Individually, or cumulatively?
-
To get more or less back on topic.
What errors were there?
Were they translation errors?
Were some due to interpreting? If so, how could that be verified?
Were some due to lost-in-confusion / cultural differences?
And are they critical? If so, in what way and to whom? Individually, or cumulatively?
As a flow chart, the first question is the important one. If the answer is none, the other questions are meaningless.
-
As a flow chart, the first question is the important one. If the answer is none, the other questions are meaningless.
That's the way it seems to me, the following ones are a sub-set, until the final one.
But errors (or potential ones) where? In the PJ statements? In the rogs? In the media?
-
That's the way it seems to me, the following ones are a sub-set, until the final one.
But errors (or potential ones) where? In the PJ statements? In the rogs? In the media?
There is no evidence of any errors.
-
To get more or less back on topic.
What errors were there?
Were they translation errors?
Were some due to interpreting? If so, how could that be verified?
Were some due to lost-in-confusion / cultural differences?
And are they critical? If so, in what way and to whom? Individually, or cumulatively?
Occasionally the translators of the Levy files made notations to detail why they had made certain assumptions in the original texts from which they were working to enable a smoother transition from Portuguese to English.
[NOTE: The next line is:
"Descreverias como tendo um cinto no interior como mecanismo para abrir e fechar."
Direct translation: You [singular] would describe [something???] as having a belt inside as a mechanism to open and close.
I think that the single word "Descreverias" should be two words "Descreveria as" meaning "I would describe them", giving the translation as:]
I would describe them [the blinds] as having a belt inside as a mechanism to open and close [them].
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
Perhaps this might have been carried out on other occasions at the translators discretion and was sometimes right and sometimes wrong but not always recorded as having been done?
-
In my opinion claims that interpreters or translators made errors aren't supportable by evidence. If they were the evidence would be presented. Inconsistencies and anomalies which don't rely on interpretation or translation can be demonstrated however. The group produced a written account of the events of 3rd May and gave it to the PJ on 10th May. They all, including Gerry, saw, read and agreed with what it said. It is in the files in the original English;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Gerry subsequently stated that he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road.
-
In my opinion claims that interpreters or translators made errors aren't supportable by evidence. If they were the evidence would be presented. Inconsistencies and anomalies which don't rely on interpretation or translation can be demonstrated however. The group produced a written account of the events of 3rd May and gave it to the PJ on 10th May. They all, including Gerry, saw, read and agreed with what it said. It is in the files in the original English;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Gerry subsequently stated that he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road.
" standing just up the hill from the gate" and "he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road" are not contradictory but both add to where they were standing.
-
I wasn't looking for errors but I think I have discovered one. What does Gerry mean here? "Asked, he relates that the daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday."
How many kids were ill on Tuesday? Is it daughter or daughters?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
-
I wasn't looking for errors but I think I have discovered one. What does Gerry mean here? "Asked, he relates that the daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday."
How many kids were ill on Tuesday? Is it daughter or daughters?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
So you are saying the daughter wasn’t ill?
-
So you are saying the daughter wasn’t ill?
Russell was married to Jane and David was married to Fiona so there should theoretically be no "daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA".
It just doesn't seem right. I'm too tired to confirm what it could mean so I have just raised it and I'll check it tomorrow.
-
There is no evidence of any errors.
It's fairly easy to establish if you can compare two written versions, or compare an audio recording to an audio or written record in the target language.
There is, however, evidence of errors being mentioned, but with nothing to be able to independently check them.
Jane's rog:
Reply “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet. But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description. And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas. And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know, ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
4 May statement:
(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.
10 May
About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.
Subsequently, she had no doubts that it could have been MBM because, through conversations with FP in which [FP] described the pyjamas that MBM had worn that night, which coincided with those she had seen.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
---
Cat Baker:
Between 11h57 and 12h12 of the same day I was again interviewed on DVD by DC GIERC. During this interview I was permitted to refresh my memory after reading my translated original statement made to the Portuguese police. There are two facts that I would like to clarify: "dining out service" which is mentioned is available for the adults, being that the children would be left under the care of a childcare worker during dinner. My original deposition also mentioned that Madeleine offered more attention to the boys in the club. I do not remember having made such an affirmation given that Madeleine passed the majority of time playing with Jane Tanner's daughter. I confirm that the deposition in this second DVD is truthful and in accord with my knowledge and that it will be registered.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
I couldn't find what she was referring to in the English of that...
Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA.htm
I found it in the PT one though.
Lines 52-53
No que concerne à menina em concreto, adianta que era uma criança bastante activa e sociável, dando contudo a sua maior atenção aos meninos do grupo a que pertencia.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_255.jpg
Possibly someone else could with a PT-speaker, but AFAIK "meninos" could well be one of those words, as in other languages that in the plural can mean either boys or a mixture of boys and girls (the masculine form taking precedence). If that's the case, the most logical reason for her comment is that whoever translated the PT into English for her to read didn't know whether it meant boys or simply children and opted for boys.
-
The Collective in French is Masculine, regardless of gender.
-
The Collective in French is Masculine, regardless of gender.
Sometimes, but not always.
A similar example in PT is that "pais" can mean fathers or parents.
-
In my opinion claims that interpreters or translators made errors aren't supportable by evidence. If they were the evidence would be presented. Inconsistencies and anomalies which don't rely on interpretation or translation can be demonstrated however. The group produced a written account of the events of 3rd May and gave it to the PJ on 10th May. They all, including Gerry, saw, read and agreed with what it said. It is in the files in the original English;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Gerry subsequently stated that he and Jes were not near the gate, they were on the opposite side of the road.
I think there is little doubt that Gerry was suffering from False Memory syndrome.
Jane adjusted her position after having given that answer. It is not easy to suddenly and spontaniously remember an exact place along a road ... especially if it was unimportant to her at the time.
My thought is that after answering the questions, she went and visually checked it out .... and upon seeing the place it jogged memory
A further thought is that Albym translated. Did he mix the meaning of the word * door * up with the word * gate * ?
In other words did Jane actually say that "The two were standing just up the hill from the * door *, [meaning the door from the tapas reception building] .... but Albym misunderstood ?
Anyone know if the words * door * and * gate * in Portuguese can be the same word?
-
There was nothing wrong with his memory to remember exact times, door positions and exactly where they were seated that night. Anything he claims not to remember is interesting.
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant."
"He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night."
"He does not remember if anybody in the group took photographs that night."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
I think there is little doubt that Gerry was suffering from False Memory syndrome.
Jane adjusted her position after having given that answer. It is not easy to suddenly and spontaniously remember an exact place along a road ... especially if it was unimportant to her at the time.
My thought is that after answering the questions, she went and visually checked it out .... and upon seeing the place it jogged memory
A further thought is that Albym translated. Did he mix the meaning of the word * door * up with the word * gate * ?
In other words did Jane actually say that "The two were standing just up the hill from the * door *, [meaning the door from the tapas reception building] .... but Albym misunderstood ?
Anyone know if the words * door * and * gate * in Portuguese can be the same word?
The point of producing the timeline was to make sure that the PJ had a full and accurate account of events. Gerry read it and agreed it with all the other members of the group. He seems to have had no objection to Jane's account at that time.
There were no translation errors because no-one translated the timeline, as I pointed out earlier.
-
Yesterdays warnings as to inappropriate posting appears to have been lost on some members so I have instructed moderators to apply maximum sanctions against any member who continues to flaunt the forum rules. There will be no appeal against these sanctions. In the worst cases the appropriate account will be deleted permanently.
No further warning will be given!
Admin
-
The point of producing the timeline was to make sure that the PJ had a full and accurate account of events. Gerry read it and agreed it with all the other members of the group. He seems to have had no objection to Jane's account at that time.
There were no translation errors because no-one translated the timeline, as I pointed out earlier.
Are you confusing what we are shown with that the PJ have? I would be most surprised if they had not translated a version into Portuguese for their own use.
-
I totally agree Carana. It is because the typist has put a full stop instead of a line of dots (which would have indicated an unfinished sentence) - that makes it look like a full sentence. There are several other instances of this 'error' by the typist where it is even more obvious that it is an unfinished sentence and not a full one. In fact according to the typist JT's very next reply ended with the word.... ''and'.
Quote
snip ............ let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
End quote
Here's another example from further on down.
Quote
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
End quote
IMO
The 'and'. Don't you think that Jane's sentence just tailed off ? She was going to say something then didn't ?
-
Are you confusing what we are shown with that the PJ have? I would be most surprised if they had not translated a version into Portuguese for their own use.
In which case, if you haven't seen this Portuguese version you cannot possibly know if it contains any errors.
-
I think there is little doubt that Gerry was suffering from False Memory syndrome.
Jane adjusted her position after having given that answer. It is not easy to suddenly and spontaniously remember an exact place along a road ... especially if it was unimportant to her at the time.
My thought is that after answering the questions, she went and visually checked it out .... and upon seeing the place it jogged memory
A further thought is that Albym translated. Did he mix the meaning of the word * door * up with the word * gate * ?
In other words did Jane actually say that "The two were standing just up the hill from the * door *, [meaning the door from the tapas reception building] .... but Albym misunderstood ?
Anyone know if the words * door * and * gate * in Portuguese can be the same word?
Just to get this clear, you think that revisiting the scene would have jogged her memory. But for some reason this would not be the case in a reconstitution?
-
The 'and'. Don't you think that Jane's sentence just tailed off ? She was going to say something then didn't ?
Yes that could be the case - but there still should have been a row of dots after the 'and' to indicate that. It's only because we know that sentences never end with an 'and' that we can safely assume it was an unfinished sentence.
-
Yes that could be the case - but there still should have been a row of dots after the 'and' to indicate that. It's only because we know that sentences never end with an 'and' that we can safely assume it was an unfinished sentence.
They don't add in the punctuation in rogatory interviews i.e. I don't think you will ever find a row of dots in an unfinished sentence.
-
They don't add in the punctuation in rogatory interviews i.e. I don't think you will ever find a row of dots in an unfinished sentence.
There might be a reason for that that I hadn't thought of. Would adding dots be considered as interpreting voice as opposed to simply transcribing actual words? If so, not the transcriber's job.
-
There might be a reason for that that I hadn't thought of. Would adding dots be considered as interpreting voice as opposed to simply transcribing actual words? If so, not the transcriber's job.
I'm sure that is it. They are transcribing not interpreting.
-
There might be a reason for that that I hadn't thought of. Would adding dots be considered as interpreting voice as opposed to simply transcribing actual words? If so, not the transcriber's job.
The online rogatory statements have "transcribed by Duarte Levy" under the headers. Without seeing the signed & witnessed police copies or listening to the DVDs there is no way of knowing just how accurate Mr Levy's transcriptions are & if anything has been edited out..
-
The online rogatory statements have "transcribed by Duarte Levy" under the headers. Without seeing the signed & witnessed police copies or listening to the DVDs there is no way of knowing just how accurate Mr Levy's transcriptions are & if anything has been edited out..
LOLLL
Hmmm. They weren't released on the DVD, but were obtained by other means might be a more logical explanation for that one.
-
Yes, I agree, but I'm still not sure what "sends bells ringing"? Re Jane, or the media, or both?
Murat was very much present as of 4 May offering his help. Lori may have had the Soham murders in mind at the time. Jane had stated that she'd seen a man that night... and that led to the whole chain of events.
I don't see it as any more complicated than that.
Cutting to the chase we have a date for JT's last statement to the PJ as 10th May 2007 and the rogatory interview of 8th April 2008. In the first she saw little she could remember and hang her hat on. On the second she averred the first remained her view. In between there were 340 plus days of hoohah relating to Mr Murat, increasing detail of what "the abductor" looked like [from whom ? as JT was the only one who saw him allowing there was nothing she could add to her original statement].
Something don't hang together there so ding dong. . I am not singling anyone out, playing the blame game is a sure fire way to failure to identify a problem and solve it ... 8(>((
-
In which case, if you haven't seen this Portuguese version you cannot possibly know if it contains any errors.
What isn't known gets invented- to make things fit.
-
Yes that could be the case - but there still should have been a row of dots after the 'and' to indicate that. It's only because we know that sentences never end with an 'and' that we can safely assume it was an unfinished sentence.
Yes three dots to be precise. However, the question is why did Jane stop herself mid sentence...
-
Cutting to the chase we have a date for JT's last statement to the PJ as 10th May 2007 and the rogatory interview of 8th April 2008. In the first she saw little she could remember and hang her hat on. On the second she averred the first remained her view. In between there were 340 plus days of hoohah relating to Mr Murat, increasing detail of what "the abductor" looked like [from whom ? as JT was the only one who saw him allowing there was nothing she could add to her original statement].
Something don't hang together there so ding dong. . I am not singling anyone out, playing the blame game is a sure fire way to failure to identify a problem and solve it ... 8(>((
I'm not sure what details you're thinking of.
-
There's a difference between translating and interpreting, and it's not just the fact that one is written and the other is verbal.
If you're translating a written text, you've got dictionaries that you can consult and a certain amount of time to think of the best way of conveying the meaning. If you're interpreting, it's live. Presumably the "interpreters" could ask if they didn't understand, but there may have been times when they thought they had understood. And there's no way now of knowing as there is no available recording of what was actually said by any of them in the PJ statements.
Another point is that even if the first lady was actually a translator, it would be useful to know what kind of translating she'd done. If it was e.g., general correspondence or even business English, the language is likely to have been more formal (i.e., with fewer colloquial expressions).
A further point is that you don't have regional accents to try to decipher when translating.
-
There's a difference between translating and interpreting, and it's not just the fact that one is written and the other is verbal.
If you're translating a written text, you've got dictionaries that you can consult and a certain amount of time to think of the best way of conveying the meaning. If you're interpreting, it's live. Presumably the "interpreters" could ask if they didn't understand, but there may have been times when they thought they had understood. And there's no way now of knowing as there is no available recording of what was actually said by any of them in the PJ statements.
Another point is that even if the first lady was actually a translator, it would be useful to know what kind of translating she'd done. If it was e.g., general correspondence or even business English, the language is likely to have been more formal (i.e., with fewer colloquial expressions).
A further point is that you don't have regional accents to try to decipher when translating.
WHICH very important parts of the interviews with the PJ which they allegedly blatantly added lies to make the McCanns look guilty of leaving their children alone, and trying to cover up their appalling child care provision.
-
WHICH very important parts of the interviews with the PJ which they blatantly added lies to make the McCanns look guilty of leaving their children alone and trying to cover up their appalling child care provision.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about.
-
It was badly edited!
Where would they have made that clear?
Kate did mention some confusion in her book (including when giving informal statements to whoever who'd come over from the UK)- I don't have the book to hand, so I can't check on that.
Of course, Kate could have invented that and those early days could have actually been a well-oiled machine with no room for misunderstandings at any time.
From my perspective, it's not a case of supporting them or not. I'm just trying to be realistic - and the idea of a well-oiled machine, taking into account the fact that the PJ had little experience of such a case, the stress of the media attention, the probably lack of resources, the language barrier, the urgency of trying to gather information ASAP to try to find a missing child... just doesn't seem realistic to me.
There was a topic ages ago on potential translation issues, but there's now a new one and it's quite a busy thread. Is that a problem?
-
Where would they have made that clear?
Kate did mention some confusion in her book (including when giving informal statements to whoever who'd come over from the UK)- I don't have the book to hand, so I can't check on that.
Of course, Kate could have invented that and those early days could have actually been a well-oiled machine with no room for misunderstandings at any time.
From my perspective, it's not a case of supporting them or not. I'm just trying to be realistic - and the idea of a well-oiled machine, taking into account the fact that the PJ had little experience of such a case, the stress of the media attention, the probably lack of resources, the language barrier, the urgency of trying to gather information ASAP to try to find a missing child... just doesn't seem realistic to me.
There was a topic ages ago on potential translation issues, but there's now a new one and it's quite a busy thread. Is that a problem?
That is not the impression you give - more a case of inventing an excuse to explain every little thing - IMO
-
That is not the impression you give - more a case of inventing an excuse to explain every little thing - IMO
IMO, that is an impression you get from most supporters and is probably because of the lack of evidence to explain the anomalies.
-
IMO, that is an impression you get from most supporters and is probably because of the lack of evidence to explain the anomalies.
But if there are situations that could explain the events and if there is no evidence against it, you need to consider if it was possible.
-
The moral of that surely being, if you don't know the answer, don't invent one.
-
That is not the impression you give - more a case of inventing an excuse to explain every little thing - IMO
If there are things that I find odd, I have no problem saying so.
As I've said before, for a long time I was on the fence until I waded through a long list of questions and tried to check. I did have a slight leaning towards thinking that they weren't involved, but then a new bit of "news" would turn up which would make me wonder again.
Now, years down the line, no, I don't think they are. Not because I know them or have had any contact with them, but simply because I haven't found anything of substance that would still make me suspicious.
I have followed other cases, and I've sometimes had trouble trying to stay objective in the other direction. Whatever suspicions I had, I still tried to fact check as far as possible.
-
But if there are situations that could explain the events and if there is no evidence against it, you need to consider if it was possible.
Proper investigators don't work on the premise of invented scenarios. If they did, they'd never get anywhere.
-
The moral of that surely being, if you don't know the answer, don't invent one.
It's not a case of inventing anything for me. IMO, it's a case of considering what the options are. If any can be excluded, then they can get ticked off. If not, then there's still a question mark, so that goes on the back burner. If some things appear beyond reasonable doubt, then they go on the front burner.
-
Proper investigators don't work on the premise of invented scenarios. If they did, they'd never get anywhere.
Tell that to Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida. Maybe they'll do better next time. Learn from this case as they say.
-
Tell that to Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida. Maybe they'll do better next time. Learn from this case as they say.
A bit late. Neither of them are active in the police any more.
-
Tell that to Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida. Maybe they'll do better next time. Learn from this case as they say.
Scotland Yard and their non existent burglars were doing just what?
-
Scotland Yard and their non existent burglars were doing just what?
Who questioned the potential burglars? I personally think SY was on the right track, but did the PJ take the task of investigating them seriously? We may never know.
-
Where would they have made that clear?
Kate did mention some confusion in her book (including when giving informal statements to whoever who'd come over from the UK)- I don't have the book to hand, so I can't check on that.
Of course, Kate could have invented that and those early days could have actually been a well-oiled machine with no room for misunderstandings at any time.
From my perspective, it's not a case of supporting them or not. I'm just trying to be realistic - and the idea of a well-oiled machine, taking into account the fact that the PJ had little experience of such a case, the stress of the media attention, the probably lack of resources, the language barrier, the urgency of trying to gather information ASAP to try to find a missing child... just doesn't seem realistic to me.
There was a topic ages ago on potential translation issues, but there's now a new one and it's quite a busy thread. Is that a problem?
The group were very interested in making sure that the PJ had every bit of information there was and tht it was correct. As 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. [madeleine]
To that end they got together and produced a document giving a summary of everything that happened which they gave to the PJ on 10th May. Not content with that, the McCanns and three others also gave statements to Control Risks Group on 13th.
The problem is that they still appear to have been unable to get it right, despite the importance they placed on it. All nine are named in the typed timeline and we're told they all agreed with it. Even so, Gerry McCann contradicted it on 10th May, as did Dianne Webster on 11th.
Those two examples are nothing to do with "the fact that the PJ had little experience of such a case, the stress of the media attention, the probably lack of resources, the language barrier, the urgency of trying to gather information ASAP to try to find a missing child".
-
G-unit could you give a little detail of these two issues please? "Even so, Gerry McCann contradicted it on 10th May, as did Dianne Webster on 11th." What were the issues briefly just to jog my failing memory.
-
G-unit could you give a little detail of these two issues please? "Even so, Gerry McCann contradicted it on 10th May, as did Dianne Webster on 11th." What were the issues briefly just to jog my failing memory.
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals
described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
-
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals
described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm
I would like to use your quote here about Jez and Gerald as a basis for a new thread, but the second bit maybe she wasn't really party to the joint time line for later I have read that she recalled passing Matt. She was obviously confused or forgetful or mistaken on the 11th of May.
-
Just to get this clear, you think that revisiting the scene would have jogged her memory. But for some reason this would not be the case in a reconstitution?
Lets get this clear.
I think that a reconstitution could have been very valuable had it been done instantly .... but months afterwards *&^^& %56&
-
Lets get this clear.
I think that a reconstitution could have been very valuable had it been done instantly .... but months afterwards *&^^& %56&
Amaral made some pretty weak excuses IMO as to why he didn't allow a reconstitution in the golden early days. I wonder what his real reason was? Was it because he had already decided [without any evidence] that kate and Gerry were responsible?
There is always the possibility that reliance on second hand reports not to mention misunderstanding of custom and practice - such as Kate's request for a priest - certainly did play a role in his thinking.
-
There is always the possibility that reliance on second hand reports not to mention misunderstanding of custom and practice - such as Kate's request for a priest - certainly did play a role in his thinking.
You seem to have forgotten IMO Brietta.
-
There is always the possibility that reliance on second hand reports not to mention misunderstanding of custom and practice - such as Kate's request for a priest - certainly did play a role in his thinking.
I dont often diagree with you, Brietta
BUT
I think that you are making excuses for him.
A really good cop would have checked all those things out before leaping to blame the parents with NO EVIDENCE IMO
-
You seem to have forgotten IMO Brietta.
It would be ludicrous to put 'my opinion' when stating facts ... perhaps you would like to take a glance here to see how Kate's request for a priest was viewed and later portrayed on every sceptic site on the internet ...
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm#p8p1975to1977
-
It would be ludicrous to put 'my opinion' when stating facts ... perhaps you would like to take a glance here to see how Kate's request for a priest was viewed and later portrayed on every sceptic site on the internet ...
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm#p8p1975to1977
The word 'possibility' means you don't consider it as a fact so IMO if you please.
-
Lets get this clear.
I think that a reconstitution could have been very valuable had it been done instantly .... but months afterwards *&^^& %56&
You suggested visiting a location after an event would assist recollection, yes?
-
Intense. Very interesting to see what happens next.
-
You suggested visiting a location after an event would assist recollection, yes?
Have you forgottten that I suggested that Jane, uncertain upon reflection abouit the exact position she had seen Gerry and Jez chatting revisited the spot to check.
Jane is no slouch. As that was likely, with all the worry of a little missing girl, to be IMMEDIATELY after the statement, Yes, I think it would have jogged her memory.
Pity that Amaral decided not to do a reconstruction immediately it was aparant that Madeleine was gone and likely abducted.
-
Have you forgottten that I suggested that Jane, uncertain upon reflection abouit the exact position she had seen Gerry and Jez chatting revisited the spot to check.
Jane is no slouch. As that was likely, with all the worry of a little missing girl, to be IMMEDIATELY after the statement, Yes, I think it would have jogged her memory.
Pity that Amaral decided not to do a reconstruction immediately it was aparant that Madeleine was gone and likely abducted.
I was surprised Silvia and the GNR PJ or whoever was there, didn't go with Jane to understand where she was when she saw the man.
-
Not sure where to reply as we seem to be OT.
-
Lets get this clear.
I think that a reconstitution could have been very valuable had it been done instantly .... but months afterwards *&^^& %56&
It should have been done within days in my view but even done later it would have been of some value. The point however which is lost in some is that the tapas group and others refused to participate in a reconstruction and that speaks volumes. Warrants should have been issued for their arrest and dragged back to Portugal to face charges of obstruction IMO.
-
I dont often diagree with you, Brietta
BUT
I think that you are making excuses for him.
A really good cop would have checked all those things out before leaping to blame the parents with NO EVIDENCE IMO
There was a sufficiency of evidence to support them being brought in as official suspects in the disappearance of their own child. What was absent ultimately however was enough proof to charge them.
-
It should have been done within days in my view but even done later it would have been of some value. The point however which is lost in some is that the tapas group and others refused to participate in a reconstruction and that speaks volumes.
Indeed, in the meantime back on thread...
has any supporter with the help from the Tapas managed to compile and report ALL the transnational errors, and lies told by everyone who is allegedly out to blame the McCanns for ... leaving their children alone every night.?
No? Didn't think so.
-
It should have been done within days in my view but even done later it would have been of some value. The point however which is lost in some is that the tapas group and others refused to participate in a reconstruction and that speaks volumes. Warrants should have been issued for their arrest and dragged back to Portugal to face charges of obstruction IMO.
Not possible. They can't just drag back any old person against whom they have no evidence.
-
Not possible. They can't just drag back any old person against whom they have no evidence.
I am sure they have evidence or obstruction and leaving a minor in danger and many other laws which may
have been broken, however I am completely surprised that this was not taken up with our Police and Social services back home. Well apart from the 12+ millions looking for an apparition of an abductor as per remit.
-
You suggested visiting a location after an event would assist recollection, yes?
Have you forgottten that I suggested that Jane, uncertain upon reflection abouit the exact position she had seen Gerry and Jez chatting revisited the spot to check.
Jane is no slouch. As that was likely, with all the worry of a little missing girl, to be checked IMMEDIATELY after the statement, Yes, I think it would have jogged her memory.
Pity that Amaral decided not to do a reconstruction immediately it was apparent that Madeleine was gone and likely abducted.
-
I am sure they have evidence or obstruction and leaving a minor in danger and many other laws which may
have been broken, however I am completely surprised that this was not taken up with our Police and Social services back home. Well apart from the 12+ millions looking for an apparition of an abductor as per remit.
There is no evidence that the rest of The Tapas Group were involved in any way.
-
It should have been done within days in my view but even done later it would have been of some value. The point however which is lost in some is that the tapas group and others refused to participate in a reconstruction and that speaks volumes. Warrants should have been issued for their arrest and dragged back to Portugal to face charges of obstruction IMO.
Are you saying that Jez should have been arrested as well?
Wouldn't have been more useful if Amaral had organised one in the first couple of weeks while everyone was still there, prior to the major onslought of pro-PJ "leaks"?
-
Are you saying that Jez should have been arrested as well?
Wouldn't have been more useful if Amaral had organised one in the first couple of weeks while everyone was still there, prior to the major onslought of pro-PJ "leaks"?
I think there is no doubt that should have been the case. There may have been circumstance that made that difficult, be it still should have happened.
It could have resolved so many doubts and uncertainties that have lingered over the years.
-
Not possible. They can't just drag back any old person against whom they have no evidence.
It could be an offence not to cooperate with an investigation, they were talking about issuing summonses to force them to return but then it would be a drawn out legal battle, in some way I think they got what they wanted in that it identified those most reluctant to return.
-
It could be an offence not to cooperate with an investigation, they were talking about issuing summonses to force them to return but then it would be a drawn out legal battle, in some way I think they got what they wanted in that it identified those most reluctant to return.
An arguido does not have to answer questions so it cant be an offence not to co operate. It seems taht the only way to force someone to return is via an international arrest warrant and these can only be issued for prosecutions not for investigations...in short they could not be forced to return and their decision was the right one...imo
-
As Kate & Gerry expressed their willingness to return for a reconstruction, I cannot see why any of their friends would want to thwart that wish by failing to comply with the request.
-
As Kate & Gerry expressed their willingness to return for a reconstruction, I cannot see why any of their friends would want to thwart that wish by failing to comply with the request.
I can...they did not trust the PJ...imo
-
There is no evidence that the rest of The Tapas Group were involved in any way.
There is some evidence, as it is gradually showing up IMO. It probably will never come to the fore here (on this forum) as it will always be treated as libel.
It also depends on what you are trying to say they did.
Could the forum ever accept the possibility that one of the Tapas group knew Madeleine was missing before Kate's check? That is not actually doing anything wrong is it? It is not wrong to know something is it? But it is still very disturbing if it was true. I find the thought of it disturbing.
-
There is some evidence, as it is gradually showing up IMO. It probably will never come to the fore here (on this forum) as it will always be treated as libel.
It also depends on what you are trying to say they did.
Could the forum ever accept the possibility that one of the Tapas group knew Madeleine was missing before Kate's check? That is not actually doing anything wrong is it? It is not wrong to know something is it? But it is still very disturbing if it was true. I find the thought of it disturbing.
you think there's evidence and you think its growing...i think you are totally wrong. Any evidence if true can be posted here...its only libel if its specualtion
-
As Kate & Gerry expressed their willingness to return for a reconstruction, I cannot see why any of their friends would want to thwart that wish by failing to comply with the request.
Kate and Gerry had no choice.
-
Why should they want or need a choice?
-
An arguido does not have to answer questions so it cant be an offence not to co operate. It seems taht the only way to force someone to return is via an international arrest warrant and these can only be issued for prosecutions not for investigations...in short they could not be forced to return and their decision was the right one...imo
There were conditions imposed on those that were made arguido. No doubt failing to turn up for investigation would be treated seriously.
you think there's evidence and you think its growing...i think you are totally wrong. Any evidence if true can be posted here...its only libel if its specualtion
It is scary for me to even think that I could be about to turn up real evidence of this. I sit here wondering if I'm right, and there is no way to discuss it. OK it starts of with a suspicion, and then you make a tentative hypothesis, which some will dismiss as speculation.
I'm sure you did not read my post properly. Prove to me you did? What is it I'm saying they were involved with?
-
There were conditions imposed on those that were made arguido. No doubt failing to turn up for investigation would be treated seriously.
It is scary for me to even think that I could be about to turn up real evidence of this. I sit here wondering if I'm right, and there is no way to discuss it. OK it starts of with a suspicion, and then you make a tentative hypothesis, which some will dismiss as speculation.
I'm sure you did not read my post properly. Prove to me you did? What is it I'm saying they were involved with?
Thing is to give it a go. If others think it worth discussing, then they will do so.
Alternatively PM your ideas to those you think might be receptive and see what happens.
-
Was Gerry lowering the shutter and then going around to the outside to see if it could be opened from the outside a translation error? I don't know about you but if your wife ever said someone has abducted your child and you go and destroy the most vital evidence - would she be in her rights to think you are involved?
Not only Gerry messed with the shutters but so did Dianne. Why did she do that? Oh it is a translation error is it? It could be for it doesn't make any sense to me.
-
There were conditions imposed on those that were made arguido. No doubt failing to turn up for investigation would be treated seriously.
It is scary for me to even think that I could be about to turn up real evidence of this. I sit here wondering if I'm right, and there is no way to discuss it. OK it starts of with a suspicion, and then you make a tentative hypothesis, which some will dismiss as speculation.
I'm sure you did not read my post properly. Prove to me you did? What is it I'm saying they were involved with?
Im sure I did read your post properly...and I think you are merely speculating.....anything that is fact can be posted
-
Was Gerry lowering the shutter and then going around to the outside to see if it could be opened from the outside a translation error? I don't know about you but if your wife ever said someone has abducted your child and you go and destroy the most vital evidence - would she be in her rights to think you are involved?
Not only Gerry messed with the shutters but so did Dianne. Why did she do that? Oh it is a translation error is it? It could be for it doesn't make any sense to me.
It makes perfect sense to me
-
Im sure I did read your post properly...and I think you are merely speculating.....anything that is fact can be posted
What am I trying to say here? "Could the forum ever accept the possibility that one of the Tapas group knew Madeleine was missing before Kate's check? That is not actually doing anything wrong is it? It is not wrong to know something is it? But it is still very disturbing if it was true. I find the thought of it disturbing."
-
What am I trying to say here? "Could the forum ever accept the possibility that one of the Tapas group knew Madeleine was missing before Kate's check? That is not actually doing anything wrong is it? It is not wrong to know something is it? But it is still very disturbing if it was true. I find the thought of it disturbing."
but there is no reason to believe its true
-
Why should they want or need a choice?
Since they weren't asked or ordered back then what they wanted or needed is irrelevant.
-
I think I have the proof now, but any proof still could be looked at in a different way. But as long as you can't prove that what I say (my theory) is impossible it has to remain on the list of possible solutions to this puzzle of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
but there is no reason to believe its true
I don't know if is true or not but it is a possibility. The only reason it remains on the list of possibilities is I can't eliminate it. Knowledge is in a person's head. The only way you can tell what a person knows is by observing what he does and interpreting those actions.
-
I think I have the proof now, but any proof still could be looked at in a different way. But as long as you can't prove that what I say (my theory) is impossible it has to remain on the list of possible solutions to this puzzle of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I don't know if is true or not but it is a possibility. The only reason it remains on the list of possibilities is I can't eliminate it. Knowledge is in a person's head. The only way you can tell what a person knows is by observing what he does and interpreting those actions.
there are realistic possibilities and unrealistic possibilities....totally unrealistic.....IMHO
-
there are realistic possibilities and unrealistic possibilities....totally unrealistic.....
I'm not talking of alien abduction yet.
-
I think there is no doubt that should have been the case. There may have been circumstance that made that difficult, be it still should have happened.
It could have resolved so many doubts and uncertainties that have lingered over the years.
I absolutely agree.
-
I'm not talking of alien abduction yet.
Yet it would have to be a, possibility.... That's, my point
-
Yet it would have to be a, possibility.... That's, my point
OK then it has to be on the list of possibilities.
-
I think there is no doubt that should have been the case. There may have been circumstance that made that difficult, be it still should have happened.
It could have resolved so many doubts and uncertainties that have lingered over the years.
There was that YT where Gerry and Jane discuss where they thought they were standing and there was a disagreement over that. How could a re-enactment really work?
-
There was that YT where Gerry and Jane discuss where they thought they were standing and there was a disagreement over that. How could a re-enactment really work?
A re-enactment would show what would and would not work regarding time and space.
For example if someone says he was in a particular place and another witness says something different, there is obviously a discrepancy to be sorted.
I know it can be done on paper, but having bodies in place shows it all that much clearer.
Of course there is nothing to prevent a reconstruction using actors, which I imagine probably has been done.
-
A re-enactment would show what would and would not work regarding time and space.
For example if someone says he was in a particular place and another witness says something different, there is obviously a discrepancy to be sorted.
I know it can be done on paper, but having bodies in place shows it all that much clearer.
Of course there is nothing to prevent a reconstruction using actors, which I imagine probably has been done.
IMO they would have to re-enact a different scenario every time there was a disagreement, i.e. act it out like for Gerry, then Jez, then Jane. Do them all.
-
I was thinking a re-enactment of the whole evening - really nail down all those comings and goings.
-
A re-enactment would show what would and would not work regarding time and space.
For example if someone says he was in a particular place and another witness says something different, there is obviously a discrepancy to be sorted.
I know it can be done on paper, but having bodies in place shows it all that much clearer.
Of course there is nothing to prevent a reconstruction using actors, which I imagine probably has been done.
I think the PJ had already worked it all out with the software they allegedly didn't have but did have.
The old "we are but simple coppers from a third world country please come over to show us how this hangs together", ruse didn't work sadly, because by that time .......... make up your own ending. ?{)(**
-
A re-enactment would show what would and would not work regarding time and space.
For example if someone says he was in a particular place and another witness says something different, there is obviously a discrepancy to be sorted.
I know it can be done on paper, but having bodies in place shows it all that much clearer.
Of course there is nothing to prevent a reconstruction using actors, which I imagine probably has been done.
It would have been useful with the OC staff and anyone else around that night.
-
I think the PJ had already worked it all out with the software they allegedly didn't have but did have.
The old "we are but simple coppers from a third world country please come over to show us how this hangs together", ruse didn't work sadly, because by that time .......... make up your own ending. ?{)(**
Yes, they may well have done by now, or the UK has.
-
It would have been useful with the OC staff and anyone else around that night.
I would only have fed that in if I deemed it necessary after the first pass.
-
A re-enactment would show what would and would not work regarding time and space.
For example if someone says he was in a particular place and another witness says something different, there is obviously a discrepancy to be sorted.
I know it can be done on paper, but having bodies in place shows it all that much clearer.
Of course there is nothing to prevent a reconstruction using actors, which I imagine probably has been done.
If everyone knew exactly where they were and the exact time they were there ... and not very many did.
Anyway ... what has this to do with translation errors? D'you know if there were a concerted effort afoot to deflect every thread on this board from the topic it couldn't, in my opinion be bettered.
-
I think the PJ had already worked it all out with the software they allegedly didn't have but did have.
The old "we are but simple coppers from a third world country please come over to show us how this hangs together", ruse didn't work sadly, because by that time .......... make up your own ending. ?{)(**
Pity it had to await the advent of the Rebelo investigation for information to be transferred to that state of the art software. Unless miscellaneous scraps of paper work just as well?
Snip
Expresso 20.10.07
The new team that is led by Paulo Rebelo, the new coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, already has the Maddie case process digitalized into the personal computers. "It was a hideous amount of work", because the process' paperwork was "anarquically spread out", according to a source with PJ, who criticises the inexistence of a centralising figure in the former team, who "would know how to distribute the work".
Chief inspector Antonio Teixeira and inspector Portel, both from the Lisbon Directory and homicide experts, are two well-know names in a team that includes another four investigators (from robberies and data crossing departments). "They are reviewing the process. There was a lot of important information that was despised in the investigation", the same source says.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/paulo-rebelo-calls-in-biggest-homicide-expert-20-1-t2333.html
-
There is no evidence that the rest of The Tapas Group were involved in any way.
There is absolutely no evidence that Kate and Gerry were involved in an abduction or Madeleine vanishing either.
-
Pity it had to await the advent of the Rebelo investigation for information to be transferred to that state of the art software. Unless miscellaneous scraps of paper work just as well?
Snip
Expresso 20.10.07
The new team that is led by Paulo Rebelo, the new coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, already has the Maddie case process digitalized into the personal computers. "It was a hideous amount of work", because the process' paperwork was "anarquically spread out", according to a source with PJ, who criticises the inexistence of a centralising figure in the former team, who "would know how to distribute the work".
Chief inspector Antonio Teixeira and inspector Portel, both from the Lisbon Directory and homicide experts, are two well-know names in a team that includes another four investigators (from robberies and data crossing departments). "They are reviewing the process. There was a lot of important information that was despised in the investigation", the same source says.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/paulo-rebelo-calls-in-biggest-homicide-expert-20-1-t2333.html
Yeah well my views on all that are bordering on criminal if not homicidal.
Given "the source" actually exists he sounds like he was part of the problem rather than helping with the solution. I can go down any labour exchange (showing mi age now) and ask for some fat lazy bstd to sit on the sidelines with his finger up his jaxi while he lobs ball bearings, with the other hand, under the feet of those doing the work.
If the guy in charge was not making best use of all the resources at his disposal he should have been hung up from the yard arm. Then on the other hand the guy in charge may have been able to do a rough pass analysis, that would pass muster, by inspection.
I doubt we will ever know the truth and each will make up his own mind about tales in the press.
-
Pity it had to await the advent of the Rebelo investigation for information to be transferred to that state of the art software. Unless miscellaneous scraps of paper work just as well?
Snip
Expresso 20.10.07
The new team that is led by Paulo Rebelo, the new coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of Policia Judiciaria (PJ) in Portimao, already has the Maddie case process digitalized into the personal computers. "It was a hideous amount of work", because the process' paperwork was "anarquically spread out", according to a source with PJ, who criticises the inexistence of a centralising figure in the former team, who "would know how to distribute the work".
Chief inspector Antonio Teixeira and inspector Portel, both from the Lisbon Directory and homicide experts, are two well-know names in a team that includes another four investigators (from robberies and data crossing departments). "They are reviewing the process. There was a lot of important information that was despised in the investigation", the same source says.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/paulo-rebelo-calls-in-biggest-homicide-expert-20-1-t2333.html
By inviting him into the case, PJ has given an inequivocal sign that the homicide theory is dominant. One does not invest in a member of staff of such value, if there was only a slight suspicion of a blood crime".
-
"By inviting him into the case, PJ has given an inequivocal sign that the homicide theory is dominant. One does not invest in a member of staff of such value, if there was only a slight suspicion of a blood crime"." Is still only one man's opinion.
-
"By inviting him into the case, PJ has given an inequivocal sign that the homicide theory is dominant. One does not invest in a member of staff of such value, if there was only a slight suspicion of a blood crime"." Is still only one man's opinion.
IMO Homicide rules out amarals theory and the parents
-
IMO Homicide rules out amarals theory and the parents
Why the parents?
-
Why the parents?
because the parents have never been suspected of homicide
-
because the parents have never been suspected of homicide
Is suspected something like considered? I would say it had been suspected at some stage. Remember the story about the plea bargain? That would not make sense unless there wasn't some suspicion of homicide.
-
because the parents have never been suspected of homicide
Classic case of circular reasoning.
-
Classic case of circular reasoning.
in your opinion...remember
-
in your opinion...remember
So you think the expression...
The possibility of Homicide rules out the parents because they have never been suspected of homicide.
Is not circular reasoning?
-
So you think the expression...
The possibility of Homicide rules out the parents because they have never been suspected of homicide.
Is not circular reasoning?
precisely
-
There is always a possibility that someone murdered Madeleine. Paedophiles tend to do that sort of thing. Nothing strange about considering this.
-
So you think the expression...
The possibility of Homicide rules out the parents because they have never been suspected of homicide.
Is not circular reasoning?
If it isn't circular is certainly is faulty.