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

[G-Unit]

Is that extracts from the the "Kate McCann Diary"?   I felt this was not needing any translation "Asked if they could ever forgive the person who had taken Madeleine, Mr McCann said: "We don't know who's taken her, we don't know why they've taken her and we don't know what's happened to Madeleine, so it's very difficult to forgive in advance."  It doesn't read like a diary entry.

No, if I quote something I give links.

The point was that they had an accusatory interview with the leaders of the investigation on 8th August at which it was made clear they were under suspicion. Three days later Sousa said they weren't under suspicion. The McCanns said;

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
BBC News 12th August
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html

Of course they knew after the interview they'd had that the police did suspect them;

I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her.
[Madeleine]

Your quote is from an interview the McCanns gave to the BBC's Heaven and Earth TV show.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html

[Alfie]

No, if I quote something I give links.

The point was that they had an accusatory interview with the leaders of the investigation on 8th August at which it was made clear they were under suspicion. Three days later Sousa said they weren't under suspicion. The McCanns said;

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
BBC News 12th August
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html

Of course they knew after the interview they'd had that the police did suspect them;

I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her.
[Madeleine]

Your quote is from an interview the McCanns gave to the BBC's Heaven and Earth TV show.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id11.html

Actually, no.

"Following Mr Sousa's comments, a spokeswoman for the McCann family said: "It is obviously heartening that the police in Portugal have finally confirmed that Kate and Gerry McCann are not suspects following the hurtful and unhelpful comments that have been made this week".

[Mr Gray]

Does anyone else find it strange that some people complain about the translations of the PJ files but accept the twice translated version of Amaral's book as truth?

who accepts amarals book as the truth

there is a massive diference and the fact you cant see it shows your bias
amarals book is once translated and we have the original portuguese to compare it to

the mccann statements are twice translated and we do not have the originals

[John]

who accepts amarals book as the truth

there is a massive diference and the fact you cant see it shows your bias
amarals book is once translated and we have the original portuguese to compare it to

the mccann statements are twice translated and we do not have the originals

In 2007 it would have been normal practice to record the interviews in Portuguese, them being subsequently translated into English for the benefit of the witnesses and the English police.  So the Portuguese language versions we have access to are the original verbatim versions surely?

[Mr Gray]

In 2007 it would have been normal practice to record the interviews in Portuguese, them being subsequently translated into English for the benefit of the witnesses and the English police.  So the Portuguese language versions we have access to are the original verbatim versions surely?

there is no record of what the mcanns actually said,,,there is no verbatim record...im surprised you dont understand that

[John]

there is no record of what the mcanns actually said,,,there is no verbatim record...im surprised you dont understand that

Since there are no audio/video recordings of the interviews that would appear to be the case.  The statements in Portuguese however appear to be the best record of the interviews.  There will be translation errors certainly, a fact of life unfortunately.

[Robittybob1]

What does a signature imply on the Portuguese versions then?
I can understanding signing your own language version as being true and correct, but one that has been translated at best you could say is that it sounds about right when retranslated back to me.

[ShiningInLuz]

What does a signature imply on the Portuguese versions then?
I can understanding signing your own language version as being true and correct, but one that has been translated at best you could say is that it sounds about right when retranslated back to me.

It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved.  That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.

Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England.  Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct?  Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.

[Brietta]

Did I read somewhere that the rogatory statements were recorded as a back up to assist the Portuguese when it came to translating the written statement?

[Mr Gray]

It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved.  That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.

Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England.  Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct?  Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.

no in the uk the statement is taken in the witnesses first language,,,signed in that language and then translated

[Mr Gray]

there is no record of what was read back to them

[Robittybob1]

It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved.  That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.

Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England.  Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct?  Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.

I think if a person can't read, it would need a support person to read the statement and make sure the person knew what he was signing.  So that is not the person who wrote the statement, but someone independant.

[Mr Gray]

It means the same as it does when there is no translation involved.  That the statement is true and contains no errors of omission or commission.

Think about what happens with someone who cannot read, in England.  Do the police say, there you go, read that and sign if it is all correct?  Or do they read back the written statement and say, sign if that is correct.

the statement says I have read and understand this...a person who cannot read could not sign and say they had read it...simple

[ShiningInLuz]

I think if a person can't read, it would need a support person to read the statement and make sure the person knew what he was signing.  So that is not the person who wrote the statement, but someone independant.

The translator was independent.

[ShiningInLuz]

Shame the incident didn't occur in England, where PACE applied.

Why is it you folks cannot get your head around - the incident occurred in Portugal - where English laws do not apply?

What is difficult about that?