Was the translation process a limiting factor in the Maddie case?

[Alfie]

Why should they be 100% accurate?  The PJ Files contain instances of the UK police getting it wrong.  Crimewatch 2013 has instances of Andy Redwood getting it wrong.  The rogs in English are sufficiently unclear to have led to more than debate on what was actually meant.

At some point the silly tests you propose will cease and be replaced by some realism.  Or maybe not.

LOL @ why should the police be 100% accurate!  What percentage of accuracy do you think they should aspire to then?  Do you think it's better not to record police interviews, and if so why do you think that?

 As for silly tests, I've no idea what you're talking about.

[ShiningInLuz]

LOL @ why should the police be 100% accurate!  What percentage of accuracy do you think they should aspire to then?  Do you think it's better not to record police interviews, and if so why do you think that?

 As for silly tests, I've no idea what you're talking about.

What they should aspire to is not relevant, since it does not reflect the reality of PJ capability in 2007 nor the requirements of the legal system.

The reality is they did not record interviews and the legal system did not require this.

They did not use your much-vaunted HOLMES, irrespective of whether you think they should aspire to this.

They did not have a DNA database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to that or not.

They did not have a paedophile database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to have one or not.

They did not have PACE, irrespective of your views on aspirations.

And that is realism.  Perhaps the McCanns should have gone to a seaside town in the UK instead, when they would have got UK policing and no need to interact with Johnny Foreigner.

Cite a case in Portugal in 2007 where interviews were recorded on DVD and you have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, you are simply PJ-bashing.

[Mr Gray]

Then stop following the case if you are discarding the bulk of the statements.

That reduces you to the rogs in English, the forensics, some police reports and the dog videos.  You are not going to get an informed opinion from that lot.

There is a lot more to the case than you seem to think....the twice translated non verbatim statements are unreliable and inadmissable as evidence against the mccanns . The fact you cannot see that is testamant to your poor understanding of the case

[Mr Gray]

Made a pig's ear of it?  That's a serious allegation unsupported by any evidence.

So how about some supporting evidence of this pig's ear?  That would mean multiple serious instances of errors of commission and/or multiple serious instances of errors of omission.

I can remember one instance of a minor error in a statement.

Let´s see you prove your 'pig's ear' allegation.

the pigs ear is supported by evidence......amarals incorrect assumptions made from the foresnsic evidence beiing a very pertinent point.

[Alfie]

What they should aspire to is not relevant, since it does not reflect the reality of PJ capability in 2007 nor the requirements of the legal system.

The reality is they did not record interviews and the legal system did not require this.

They did not use your much-vaunted HOLMES, irrespective of whether you think they should aspire to this.

They did not have a DNA database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to that or not.

They did not have a paedophile database, irrespective of your views on whether they should aspire to have one or not.

They did not have PACE, irrespective of your views on aspirations.

And that is realism.  Perhaps the McCanns should have gone to a seaside town in the UK instead, when they would have got UK policing and no need to interact with Johnny Foreigner.

Cite a case in Portugal in 2007 where interviews were recorded on DVD and you have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, you are simply PJ-bashing.

We know what they didn't have but thanks for the list anyway and for reminding us of what sort of organisation it is / was.

[ShiningInLuz]

There is a lot more to the case than you seem to think....the twice translated non verbatim statements are unreliable and inadmissable as evidence against the mccanns . The fact you cannot see that is testamant to your poor understanding of the case

T'would help if you would inform the forum as to this 'lot more'.  No doubt admissible as evidence.  And by the way, I did not claim 'against the McCanns'.

Apart from that, what have you trotted out here?  The one-trick pony called 'twice translated non-verbatim' statements.  What goes around comes around.

Not a single example of a problem with them.  Not one.  Not any.  Surely you must be replete with examples?

[ShiningInLuz]

the pigs ear is supported by evidence......amarals incorrect assumptions made from the foresnsic evidence beiing a very pertinent point.

Let me see.  We were discussing statements and the method of taking thereof.

You said "the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling".

I asked for evidence of the PJ making a pig's ear of the statements.  Omission or commission.

And you respond about 'foresnsic' evidence?

 *&*%£

[ShiningInLuz]

We know what they didn't have but thanks for the list anyway and for reminding us of what sort of organisation it is / was.

Feel free to compare it to any other country of around 11m people in 2007 and see if you can come up with better.

As I said before, if the McCanns were concerned about Portugal, then why not have a nice little holiday in Britain?

And if they were concerned, why not make better arrangements for their kids?  They had a menu to choose from.

[Alfie]

Feel free to compare it to any other country of around 11m people in 2007 and see if you can come up with better.

As I said before, if the McCanns were concerned about Portugal, then why not have a nice little holiday in Britain?

And if they were concerned, why not make better arrangements for their kids?  They had a menu to choose from.

The McCanns were foolish yes, but we have all learned from their mistakes - I would certainly now choose a nice little holiday in Britain over a week in Portugal any time.

[mercury]

The McCanns were foolish yes, but we have all learned from their mistakes - I would certainly now choose a nice little holiday in Britain over a week in Portugal any time.

Speak for yourself
If ive learned anythng from their "mistakes" its a tonne of stuff , none of it to do wth childcare

 

[mercury]

Let me see.  We were discussing statements and the method of taking thereof.

You said "the fact that you cannot see what a pigs ear the pj made in taking the statements is very telling".

I asked for evidence of the PJ making a pig's ear of the statements.  Omission or commission.

And you respond about 'foresnsic' evidence?

 *&*%£

Davel likes to put posters through hoops on the tiniest of details but doesnt do too well the other way around when his sweeping unsupported statements are challenged.

[Mr Gray]

T'would help if you would inform the forum as to this 'lot more'.  No doubt admissible as evidence.  And by the way, I did not claim 'against the McCanns'.

Apart from that, what have you trotted out here?  The one-trick pony called 'twice translated non-verbatim' statements.  What goes around comes around.

Not a single example of a problem with them.  Not one.  Not any.  Surely you must be replete with examples?

simple question which you will be unable to answer...how accurate are the twice transalted non verbatim statements. The answer is you don't know...end of


what we do know is that they are not admisable as evidence against the McCanns....another pigs ear by the PJ

[Benice]

T'would help if you would inform the forum as to this 'lot more'.  No doubt admissible as evidence.  And by the way, I did not claim 'against the McCanns'.

Apart from that, what have you trotted out here?  The one-trick pony called 'twice translated non-verbatim' statements.  What goes around comes around.

Not a single example of a problem with them.  Not one.  Not any.  Surely you must be replete with examples?

This note from the translator  - would strongly suggest that translating the statements was not exactly a walk in the park.

QUOTE
905 to 917 Witness statement of Matthew David Oldfield 2007.05.10
918-Consent for mouth swab for Matthew David Oldfield
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
 
04-Processo 04 Page 905 to 917
 
 
[M Oldfield's  Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese.      I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.

If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.]
End quote


Surely the only reason the McCanns would have the files translated by professionals is because of inaccuracies.
One mistranslated word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.

Another example of how translating and retranslating can produce errors is mentioned in Kate's book about her diary which was translated from English to Portuguese and then back to English.

Quote

''I was really upset'' had become ''I was fed up''

''I never felt that relaxed''  had become  'I'd never felt so relaxed''
Unquote

In that last example by changing just two  little words i.e.

''that'' to ''so'' 

and

''I'' to ''I'd'' ..... means that the opposite meaning of what she had really said was wrongly conveyed to the reader.

[slartibartfast]

simple question which you will be unable to answer...how accurate are the twice transalted non verbatim statements. The answer is you don't know...end of


what we do know is that they are not admisable as evidence against the McCanns....another pigs ear by the PJ

Well

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

Seems to say otherwise once they were made arguidos.

[ShiningInLuz]

simple question which you will be unable to answer...how accurate are the twice transalted non verbatim statements. The answer is you don't know...end of


what we do know is that they are not admisable as evidence against the McCanns....another pigs ear by the PJ

Actually, anyone who has studied the files does know the answer to this.  As I stated earlier (not twice translated so it should have got through) there is but one instance of a person reporting an error in a previous statement, and that was a minor error.

To repeat, if you claim the PJ made a pig's ear of the statements there should be multiple serious errors of omission and/or commission.  It's up to you to provide the instances of this.

To date, you have studiously avoided doing so, thus I can be confident the this 'pig's ear' exists only in your imagination.