Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

Why wouldn’t it be?

It would have to have matched what Kate originally said. Any deviation and Kate would have pointed it out, surely?

Kates words weren't written down they were paraphrased..
Everyone was tired after hours and hours of questioning....you accept their accuracy if you wish..Its obvious mistakes were possible

[Mr Gray]

No. If you look at the Portuguese originals they’re signed by Kate.

Meaningless...

[faithlilly]

Kates words weren't written down they were paraphrased..
Everyone was tired after hours and hours of questioning....you accept their accuracy if you wish..Its obvious mistakes were possible

Even if paraphrased if the meaning of the words were distorted or untrue Kate would not have signed the translation.

[faithlilly]

Meaningless...

Not at all. Her signature verifies the translations were accurate.

Her arguido interview was attended by a lawyer. If the translations hadn’t been accurate, and her lawyer would have spoken Portuguese, do you think he would have let her sign them?

[Mr Gray]

Not at all. Her signature verifies the translations were accurate.

Her arguido interview was attended by a lawyer. If the translations hadn’t been accurate, and her lawyer would have spoken Portuguese, do you think he would have let her sign them?

From a legal perspective it doesn't......anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge would know this.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you believe she was stupid enough to sign a statement both in May and September that hadn’t been read back to her in English?

No I don’t believe she is stupid at all, nor do I think she should have been expected to sign a statement that was  being translated back to her verbally, which may not have been a wholly accurate representation of what was written down inPortuguese in the first place and which may have translated slightly differently the next time it was translated back to her.   

[Mr Gray]

I know from my own professional. Knowledge that a clients signature on a consent form does not guarantee that the client has understood what they have signed...that'd fact not opinion

[faithlilly]

From a legal perspective it doesn't......anyone with an ounce of legal knowledge would know this.

Unless there’s some suggestion of coercion, and there isn’t here, Kate’s statements can, and would, be used in a court of law.

[Mr Gray]

Unless there’s some suggestion of coercion, and there isn’t here, Kate’s statements can, and would, be used in a court of law.

Wrong again..they weren't taken under caution....and therefore cannot be used to incriminate the witness.

That's why they have arguido status

[faithlilly]

No I don’t believe she is stupid at all, nor do I think she should have been expected to sign a statement that was  being translated back to her verbally, which may not have been a wholly accurate representation of what was written down inPortuguese in the first place and which may have translated slightly differently the next time it was translated back to her.

If it was not a wholly accurate representation why would Kate, or Gerry, have signed it? She knew what had happened and what she said had happened. In September her Portuguese lawyer would certainly have been aware whether Kate’s statement was accurate and he certainly didn’t raise any objections.

[Mr Gray]

If it was not a wholly accurate representation why would Kate, or Gerry, have signed it? She knew what had happened and what she said had happened. In September her Portuguese lawyer would certainly have been aware whether Kate’s statement was accurate and he certainly didn’t raise any objections.

Carry on believing the junk you believe...thats why you're a sceptic....how's your dental nurse contact in stourbridge...lol

[faithlilly]

Wrong again..they weren't taken under caution....and therefore cannot be used to incriminate the witness.

That's why they have arguido status

This is not whether the statement would incriminate Kate but whether it was accurate.

The May statement was taken as a witness. The September ones were. as an arguido and the statements would then have the same weight as one given under caution in the U.K. There is no caution in Portugal.

[faithlilly]

Carry on believing the junk you believe...thats why you're a sceptic....how's your dental nurse contact in stourbridge...lol

It’s not what I believe, it’s simply common sense.

[Mr Gray]

This is not whether the statement would incriminate Kate but whether it was accurate.

The May statement was taken as a witness. The September ones were. as an arguido and the statements would then have the same weight as one given under caution in the U.K. There is no caution in Portugal.

Arguido is equivalent to caution in the UK

Kates Arguido statement would of course be admissible
..what use would that be

[Mr Gray]

This is not whether the statement would incriminate Kate but whether it was accurate.

The May statement was taken as a witness. The September ones were. as an arguido and the statements would then have the same weight as one given under caution in the U.K. There is no caution in Portugal.

You're wrong...statement on the 6th Sept not arguido