Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

Kate said there were so many errors they made new ststements with CRG which were sent to the. PJ

Yes. Why they decided on 13th May that parts of the statements they had made might have been lost in translation is not explained. Nor do these new statements appear in the PJ files, so there's no evidence of what they said or that the PJ received them. Even those statements. taken and recorded in English, weren't correct according to Kate. Unless, of course her memory of what she meant to say is the problem rather than the records.

Kate's references to 'lost in translation' have only one possible conclusion imo, which is that she is suggesting that the interpreters didn't do their jobs properly. In fact she's naming Natalia Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida and Alice Dias Homem de Gouveia Avakoff.

How do you detect that something has been lost in translation? In the McCann's situation they could only compare what they meant to say with what the interpreters read back to them. If the two accounts didn't match the time to mention it was then, rather than saying nothing and signing that it was accurate.

[Mr Gray]

Yes. Why they decided on 13th May that parts of the statements they had made might have been lost in translation is not explained. Nor do these new statements appear in the PJ files, so there's no evidence of what they said or that the PJ received them. Even those statements. taken and recorded in English, weren't correct according to Kate. Unless, of course her memory of what she meant to say is the problem rather than the records.

Kate's references to 'lost in translation' have only one possible conclusion imo, which is that she is suggesting that the interpreters didn't do their jobs properly. In fact she's naming Natalia Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida and Alice Dias Homem de Gouveia Avakoff.

How do you detect that something has been lost in translation? In the McCann's situation they could only compare what they meant to say with what the interpreters read back to them. If the two accounts didn't match the time to mention it was then, rather than saying nothing and signing that it was accurate.

You choose not to believe Kate .....you think shes lying......i find her claim credible. ...you dont....end of

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes. Why they decided on 13th May that parts of the statements they had made might have been lost in translation is not explained. Nor do these new statements appear in the PJ files, so there's no evidence of what they said or that the PJ received them. Even those statements. taken and recorded in English, weren't correct according to Kate. Unless, of course her memory of what she meant to say is the problem rather than the records.

Kate's references to 'lost in translation' have only one possible conclusion imo, which is that she is suggesting that the interpreters didn't do their jobs properly. In fact she's naming Natalia Carvalho Ferreira de Almeida and Alice Dias Homem de Gouveia Avakoff.

How do you detect that something has been lost in translation? In the McCann's situation they could only compare what they meant to say with what the interpreters read back to them. If the two accounts didn't match the time to mention it was then, rather than saying nothing and signing that it was accurate.

Hang on.  If the two accounts didn't match they may well have mentioned it at the time - what was the procedure for making amendments and were these immediately re-typed and re-read to the witnesses?  When you are translating "on the hoof" as these translators would be doing (ie: reading in Portuguese and then reading aloud in English) do you not think there is any scope whatsoever for mistranslations to occur and that what they were told were in the statements were not 100% faithful to what actually WERE in the statements?  I see you have avoided addressing my previous questions.

[Eleanor]

Hang on.  If the two accounts didn't match they may well have mentioned it at the time - what was the procedure for making amendments and were these immediately re-typed and re-read to the witnesses?  When you are translating "on the hoof" as these translators would be doing (ie: reading in Portuguese and then reading aloud in English) do you not think there is any scope whatsoever for mistranslations to occur and that what they were told were in the statements were not 100% faithful to what actually WERE in the statements?  I see you have avoided addressing my previous questions.

Of course there was room for error.  In fact it is unavoidable, as I well know after thirty years of battling with The French Language.  And at least I have some personal experience of this.

[G-Unit]

Hang on.  If the two accounts didn't match they may well have mentioned it at the time - what was the procedure for making amendments and were these immediately re-typed and re-read to the witnesses?  When you are translating "on the hoof" as these translators would be doing (ie: reading in Portuguese and then reading aloud in English) do you not think there is any scope whatsoever for mistranslations to occur and that what they were told were in the statements were not 100% faithful to what actually WERE in the statements?  I see you have avoided addressing my previous questions.

I don't know what the procedure was, but witholding signatures would have required some action imo.

Are you suggesting the interpreters lied to them about what the statements  said?

[faithlilly]

I don't know what the procedure was, but witholding signatures would have required some action imo.

Are you suggesting the interpreters lied to them about what the statements  said?

That can be the only conclusion.

[Eleanor]

That can be the only conclusion.

Nuances.

[Brietta]

I don't know what the procedure was, but witholding signatures would have required some action imo.

Are you suggesting the interpreters lied to them about what the statements  said?

Here's one I made earlier.

Nearly two years earlier truth be told and the wonderment is ~
right - I give you that there was absolutely noooo secret to the first part of my closing sentence "But it has all been said before many times and in many locations" easy peasy that one as I was merely speaking with the voice of experience having heard the sceptic mantras so repeatedly
but ~ and here is where the 'wonderment' comes in "and it will definitely all be said again and then again in deference to Groundhog Day." 
And I didn't even need to gaze into my crystal ball for my forecast.  Here we are yet again - yet again - yet again.
Boy! am I good or am I good! or is it a case that sceptics really can't escape groundhog day?


"Not only transcribed verbatim but recorded in audio and video.

Kate describes in her book the actual process involved in her Portuguese interviews.

• questions were put in Portuguese
• an interpreter relayed them to her in English
• answers were translated into Portuguese
• and typed up by the police officer as translated to him by the interpreter
• there was neither audio nor video recording of the laborious time consuming process

And members use the result in confirmation of their notion of so called 'inaccuracies' or 'inconsistences' in statements.

In my opinion it would have been impossible were there none using that process.  All it would take to introduce some would be for subsequent interviews to be interpreted by a different translator and transcribed by a different officer to introduce a poolside/carpark side ~ front door/back door misunderstood situation.

But it has all been said before many times and in many locations and it will definitely all be said again and then again in deference to Groundhog Day."

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11731.msg624337#msg624337

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know what the procedure was, but witholding signatures would have required some action imo.

Are you suggesting the interpreters lied to them about what the statements  said?

Of course I'm not suggesting that, but people make errors or interpret things differently, that is all.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That can be the only conclusion.

only to the terminally dimwitted.

[faithlilly]

If anyone here actually believes that individuals as intelligent as the parents would have signed a statement which hadn’t been read back to them English then it really isn’t worth my energy trying to discuss it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If anyone here actually believes that individuals as intelligent as the parents would have signed a statement which hadn’t been read back to them English then it really isn’t worth my energy trying to discuss it.

Who here has suggested that?

[G-Unit]

Of course I'm not suggesting that, but people make errors or interpret things differently, that is all.

As the people named McCann have criticised the process I'm surprised that not one example has ever been provided.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As the people named McCann have criticised the process I'm surprised that not one example has ever been provided.

Have you read  Kate’s book?  She provides examples in there.

[G-Unit]

Have you read  Kate’s book?  She provides examples in there.

Actual examples or hints?