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

[ShiningInLuz]

It is a fact that there will be mistakes in twice translated non verbatim statements. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded

Why simply parrot the same sentence over and over?  You had the chance to address the points I raised, but the best you can do is a jibe.

That demonstrates your knowledge of language translation.

And again, if you really believe so much of the information in the PJ Files cannot be trusted, what is the point in continuing? 

[Mr Gray]

Why simply parrot the same sentence over and over?  You had the chance to address the points I raised, but the best you can do is a jibe.

That demonstrates your knowledge of language translation.

And again, if you really believe so much of the information in the PJ Files cannot be trusted, what is the point in continuing? 

anyone with any sense would realise twice translated non verbatim statenets will contain errors. anyone who does not realise this has little knowledge of language translation. We dont even know the qualifications of those who made the translations

[ShiningInLuz]

anyone with any sense would realise twice translated non verbatim statenets will contain errors. anyone who does not realise this has little knowledge of language translation. We dont even know the qualifications of those who made the translations

Little by little the truth is emerging.  You are willing to call into question the competence of the translators is, without actually knowing the qualifications thereof.  And this despite, thus far, flagging up not a single problem with the translations.

I don't happen to know the qualifications for, say, a PJ Inspector, or a DCI in SY, but until I get some evidence that they are not up to scratch, I will not make the assumption they are incompetent.

You are working the other way round with the translators.

Did the McCanns ever complain about the competency of the translators?

[Mr Gray]

Little by little the truth is emerging.  You are willing to call into question the competence of the translators is, without actually knowing the qualifications thereof.  And this despite, thus far, flagging up not a single problem with the translations.

I don't happen to know the qualifications for, say, a PJ Inspector, or a DCI in SY, but until I get some evidence that they are not up to scratch, I will not make the assumption they are incompetent.

You are working the other way round with the translators.

Did the McCanns ever complain about the competency of the translators?

you seem to have little knowledge of translating.........twice translated non verbatim statements will have errors .......that is a fact

[ShiningInLuz]

you seem to have little knowledge of translating.........twice translated non verbatim statements will have errors .......that is a fact

Any translation is unlikely to be 100% accurate, with limited exceptions.  Consequently your statement is meaningless.  It is as meaningless as saying that verbatim, non-translated statements will have errors in them, and that that is a fact.

All one needs to do is to look at what was supposedly being said in some or the rogs to understand the issues with verbatim, non-translated statements.

I put my experience in this respect into this thread earlier on.  Perhaps you missed it.

I can translate, to varying degrees of ability, between English, French, Latin, Spanish and Portuguese, but I would not get a job as a translator.  Unless you know the qualifications for a translator, you would do well to cease denigrating them.

I see you are still ignoring the points raised and are merely parroting a stock phrase once more.

[Robittybob1]

Of all the people who gave statements, has any of  them publically complained that the PJ made a bad job of translating their own statement on the basis of what they see in the restored version?

[Mr Gray]

Any translation is unlikely to be 100% accurate, with limited exceptions.  Consequently your statement is meaningless.  It is as meaningless as saying that verbatim, non-translated statements will have errors in them, and that that is a fact.

All one needs to do is to look at what was supposedly being said in some or the rogs to understand the issues with verbatim, non-translated statements.

I put my experience in this respect into this thread earlier on.  Perhaps you missed it.

I can translate, to varying degrees of ability, between English, French, Latin, Spanish and Portuguese, but I would not get a job as a translator.  Unless you know the qualifications for a translator, you would do well to cease denigrating them.

I see you are still ignoring the points raised and are merely parroting a stock phrase once more.

So at last you accept their will be errors. As these satements are non verbatim and twice translated then the margin of error is likely to be greater...

so sil now accepts that the statements are unlikely to be 100% accurate...progress at last

[G-Unit]

Of all the people who gave statements, has any of  them publically complained that the PJ made a bad job of translating their own statement on the basis of what they see in the restored version?

The only person who I have seen commenting is Kate McCann, and she says 'might'; nothing definite, no examples. CRG took statements too, in English, and got them wrong apparently;

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!
Madeleine Kate McCann.

[ShiningInLuz]

Of all the people who gave statements, has any of  them publically complained that the PJ made a bad job of translating their own statement on the basis of what they see in the restored version?

I have no evidence of anyone complaining, though that is probably not significant, in most instances.

What I cannot remember seeing is the McCanns complaining, when they had a professionally translated copy of the PJ Files.  If that is correct, then it is reasonable to assume the statements accurately reflect what the McCanns said, and the twice-translated, non-verbatim argument comes crashing down like a pack of cards.

[Alfie]

When I said you played silly games, I did not expect another one so soon.

You know full well I did not claim there is only mistake in those statements where an interpreter was used, so why make it appear that I did?

I take it you can't come up with further examples either.

 

There is at least one thread on this forum devoted to the subject I believe.  You claimed there was only one mistake reported in the entire Files, I stand corrected, my most humble apologies.

[Robittybob1]

The only person who I have seen commenting is Kate McCann, and she says 'might'; nothing definite, no examples. CRG took statements too, in English, and got them wrong apparently;

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!
Madeleine Kate McCann.

Here Kate is talking about repeat statements but isn't there only the one brief statement from Kate in the file (before the arguido statements?  Did the ones produced by the "Control Risks" not end up in the files?

[ShiningInLuz]

So at last you accept their will be errors. As these satements are non verbatim and twice translated then the margin of error is likely to be greater...

so sil now accepts that the statements are unlikely to be 100% accurate...progress at last

I cannot remember claiming 100% accuracy.  If you remember, I was railing against your comment that the PJ translations are a pig's ear, which implies they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

To date, you still have not provided anything that supports this 'pig's ear'.

Actually, you do not appear to have provided anything, if my memory is correct.

[ShiningInLuz]

The only person who I have seen commenting is Kate McCann, and she says 'might'; nothing definite, no examples. CRG took statements too, in English, and got them wrong apparently;

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!
Madeleine Kate McCann.

May I ask if you are confident this is the only query as to the accuracy of translations in Kate's book.  I am not challenging.  I could not remember anything about this so you have already done better than me.  I just happen to be interested in ferreting out the truth on this point.

OK. So did Kate have access to the translation of the PJ Files when the McCanns gave these new statements?  I need to look at the forum section on when CRG was involved.

[ShiningInLuz]

There is at least one thread on this forum devoted to the subject I believe.  You claimed there was only one mistake reported in the entire Files, I stand corrected, my most humble apologies.

I have tried looking for the thread and I cannot find it.  I am ever-so-slowly building up an index for the forum, with the aims of reducing the number of off-topic posts and cutting the number of groundhog days.

I claimed that I only knew of one incident where someone stated that a previous statement was erroneous.  From memory, it is one of the women in the T9, the error was one of omission, and the details are somewhere in the rogatories.  And the gist is that something had been said in an interview, but not included in the statement, to which the translator agreed that the interviewee had raised it in a previous interview.  That would mean someone interviewed in Portugal twice, with the same translator.

I have no interest in wasting what little I have left of life hunting this down.  It matters not a jot.

[Mr Gray]

I cannot remember claiming 100% accuracy.  If you remember, I was railing against your comment that the PJ translations are a pig's ear, which implies they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

To date, you still have not provided anything that supports this 'pig's ear'.

Actually, you do not appear to have provided anything, if my memory is correct.

I never said the statements were a pigs ear. Never mind translations my post is in english and you have misunderstood that