Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

I accept that errors may have been made when the volunteer translators translated the statements in the files. However…and it is a big however…believers have had 15 years to translate those statements properly and highlight the errors. They have failed to do that.

What I don’t accept is that the parents signed their statements without their statements being read to them in English and that when those statements were read to them in English that the parents would not have pointed out any errors at that time before signing.

what you accept is nether here nor there....i can clearly see how major mistakes could be made

[Eleanor]

The original photostats of the statements, signed, are there for all to see. How could Levi have altered what is an obviously original statement?

Levi's interference unfortunately still sticks and still appears on occasions for those who want to believe it.

I don't actually care anymore.  The Files are no longer of any importance.

[Wonderfulspam]

The original photostats of the statements, signed, are there for all to see. How could Levi have altered what is an obviously original statement?

I was interested to see the answer to this & wasn't in the least bit surprised by the complete non reply.

[Wonderfulspam]

Levi's interference unfortunately still sticks and still appears on occasions for those who want to believe it.

I don't actually care anymore.  The Files are no longer of any importance.

The case against the abductor is more important isn't it.
How's that going by the way?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I accept that errors may have been made when the volunteer translators translated the statements in the files. However…and it is a big however…believers have had 15 years to translate those statements properly and highlight the errors. They have failed to do that.

What I don’t accept is that the parents signed their statements without their statements being read to them in English and that when those statements were read to them in English that the parents would not have pointed out any errors at that time before signing.

Firstly - this has got sod all to do with "believers" and their "failure" to study Portuguese to degree level and beyond to spend years translating the files - that's for those for more with a far more obsessive nature to take on.  This is about evidence that the files contained translation errors and you accept that these are possible from the Portuguese to English translations.   
Secondly, at what point did the McCanns complain about the errors in the files?  As far as I'm aware they are not Portuguese speakers or readers so IMO it's unlikely they were complaining about the original Portuguese transcripts they did sign, but about English translations of these transcripts which they never signed.  Who knows what nuances were lost between Kate speaking, a translator writing it all down in the third person in Portuguese, a translator reading back from a transcript (which is very different to being able to sit down and carefully read through a document yourself), then having that docoment translated back into English at a later stage.  You either accept this or you don't yet you appear to be in both camps.  I can't keep reitierating the same point over and over again so we will have to agree to both agree and disagree (as you seem to be doing both!)

[G-Unit]

It's all suposition anyway. I'm sure the McCanns would have been broadcasting it far and wide if they'd found any serious discrepancies in the files. There were discrepancies in the McCann's accounts, one of which was their differing accounts of the conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May. This was important enough to be included in their first statements, so what did they say about it?

Kate, 4th May; Madeleine asked her why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying.
Gerry 4th May; Madeleine asked him why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying.

This account changes in Gerry's 10th May statement;

MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??.

On 6th September Kate said;

Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room

I don't think the incident made much of an impression because neither of them gave a full a clear account of it. Who cried? The twins, one twin and Madeleine or just Madeleine? It seems to me that a poorly remembered conversation with a three year old wasn't significant at all. As time went by the McCanns suggested that Madeleine was talking about a crying incident (by someone) on Wednesday night, but Madeleine could have been referring to Tuesday night, imo, when crying in 5A was heard by a neighbour.

[Mr Gray]

It's all suposition anyway. I'm sure the McCanns would have been broadcasting it far and wide if they'd found any serious discrepancies in the files. There were discrepancies in the McCann's accounts, one of which was their differing accounts of the conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May. This was important enough to be included in their first statements, so what did they say about it?

Kate, 4th May; Madeleine asked her why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying.
Gerry 4th May; Madeleine asked him why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying.

This account changes in Gerry's 10th May statement;

MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??.

On 6th September Kate said;

Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room

I don't think the incident made much of an impression because neither of them gave a full a clear account of it. Who cried? The twins, one twin and Madeleine or just Madeleine? It seems to me that a poorly remembered conversation with a three year old wasn't significant at all. As time went by the McCanns suggested that Madeleine was talking about a crying incident (by someone) on Wednesday night, but Madeleine could have been referring to Tuesday night, imo, when crying in 5A was heard by a neighbour.

It's all supposition on your behalf that the statements were translated accurately. We know the translator paraphrased what the Mcs said snd may well of further paraphrased when reading them back.

Without an accurate verbatim account I think it's fair to say...as sutton did that the room for error was enormous

[G-Unit]

It's all supposition on your behalf that the statements were translated accurately. We know the translator paraphrased what the Mcs said snd may well of further paraphrased when reading them back.

Without an accurate verbatim account I think it's fair to say...as sutton did that the room for error was enormous

So your only contribution is that you don't believe that the McCanns misremembered what Madeleine said to them as time went by? Following the alleged leak revealed by a Spanish TV station they appeared to believe that he was telling the truth, although his version of Kate's 4th May statement differed significantly from the original. It seems to me they misremembered the contents of those first statements too.

[Mr Gray]

So your only contribution is that you don't believe that the McCanns misremembered what Madeleine said to them as time went by? Following the alleged leak revealed by a Spanish TV station they appeared to believe that he was telling the truth, although his version of Kate's 4th May statement differed significantly from the original. It seems to me they misremembered the contents of those first statements too.

i think based on your previous posts your analysis is totally worthless.  the way the statements were taken was arecipe for disater imo....plus they are not admissible as the Mcs were not arguidos

The problem for you and othere sceptics is taht along with the dogs the statemnets are the cornerstone of your evidence against the Mss,,,,,what that means is taht in reality there is no real evidence...which you cannot possibly accept

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's all suposition anyway. I'm sure the McCanns would have been broadcasting it far and wide if they'd found any serious discrepancies in the files. There were discrepancies in the McCann's accounts, one of which was their differing accounts of the conversation with Madeleine on the morning of 3rd May. This was important enough to be included in their first statements, so what did they say about it?

Kate, 4th May; Madeleine asked her why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying.
Gerry 4th May; Madeleine asked him why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying.

This account changes in Gerry's 10th May statement;

MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??.

On 6th September Kate said;

Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room

I don't think the incident made much of an impression because neither of them gave a full a clear account of it. Who cried? The twins, one twin and Madeleine or just Madeleine? It seems to me that a poorly remembered conversation with a three year old wasn't significant at all. As time went by the McCanns suggested that Madeleine was talking about a crying incident (by someone) on Wednesday night, but Madeleine could have been referring to Tuesday night, imo, when crying in 5A was heard by a neighbour.

Is this seriously the best you can do?  Where are the contradictions? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

I‘ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this is how conspiracy theorists work, by focusing on largely irrelevant minutiae and blowing it up out of all proportion.  They choose not to see the wood for the trees and this is how they are able to perpetuate and promulgate their beliefs. 

[Brietta]

So your only contribution is that you don't believe that the McCanns misremembered what Madeleine said to them as time went by? Following the alleged leak revealed by a Spanish TV station they appeared to believe that he was telling the truth, although his version of Kate's 4th May statement differed significantly from the original. It seems to me they misremembered the contents of those first statements too.

Chinese Whispers
Players form a line or circle, and the first player comes up with a message and whispers it to the ear of the second person in the line. The second player repeats the message to the third player, and so on. When the last player is reached, they announce the message they heard to the entire group. The first person then compares the original message with the final version. Although the objective is to pass around the message without it becoming garbled along the way, part of the enjoyment is that, regardless, this usually ends up happening. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly from that of the first player, usually with amusing or humorous effect. Reasons for changes include anxiousness or impatience, erroneous corrections, and the difficult-to-understand mechanism of whispering.

The game is often played by children as a party game or on the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread,[1] or, more generally, for the unreliability of typical human recollection.

I agree that - having played this game as a child - that a greater understanding of why word of mouth certainly does invoke the metaphors claimed.

Once more you display your profound ignorance of real life situations epitomised in the children's game with your insular reactions.
cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread, or, more generally, for the unreliability of typical human recollection. You are in denial when it suits you of the inappropriateness and inadmissibility of the materials you use constantly in what amounts to your children's game epitomising who can level the vilest slurs.

[faithlilly]

It's all supposition on your behalf that the statements were translated accurately. We know the translator paraphrased what the Mcs said snd may well of further paraphrased when reading them back.

Without an accurate verbatim account I think it's fair to say...as sutton did that the room for error was enormous

May well of? Don’t you mean have?

[Eleanor]

May well of? Don’t you mean have?

We don't criticise the grammar or spelling of others on this Forum.

[G-Unit]

Chinese Whispers
Players form a line or circle, and the first player comes up with a message and whispers it to the ear of the second person in the line. The second player repeats the message to the third player, and so on. When the last player is reached, they announce the message they heard to the entire group. The first person then compares the original message with the final version. Although the objective is to pass around the message without it becoming garbled along the way, part of the enjoyment is that, regardless, this usually ends up happening. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly from that of the first player, usually with amusing or humorous effect. Reasons for changes include anxiousness or impatience, erroneous corrections, and the difficult-to-understand mechanism of whispering.

The game is often played by children as a party game or on the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread,[1] or, more generally, for the unreliability of typical human recollection.

I agree that - having played this game as a child - that a greater understanding of why word of mouth certainly does invoke the metaphors claimed.

Once more you display your profound ignorance of real life situations epitomised in the children's game with your insular reactions.
cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread, or, more generally, for the unreliability of typical human recollection. You are in denial when it suits you of the inappropriateness and inadmissibility of the materials you use constantly in what amounts to your children's game epitomising who can level the vilest slurs.

I can see no similarities between giving statements to the police and playing Chinese Whispers, sorry. I'm also unable to understand how repeating the words spoken by the McCanns can be described as a vile slur.