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

[mercury]

We are only talking about their conflict of interest declaration.  Not their ability to translate and interpret.  But unless there is no conflict of interest they can't have that role.

Oh dear
You said:
Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ.


Why is it a conflict of interest being employed by the pj??? The pj are not people of interest in crimes
Ffs

anyway this is a dud discussion as no one has brought any evidence at all that the translations were wrong, next

[ShiningInLuz]

Please do not libel the NZ police.

Provide evidence or desist.

[Robittybob1]

Oh dear
You said:
Interpreters and translators have to sign a statement that they were without conflict of interest, and that would be difficult if at the same time they were employed by the PJ.


Why is it a conflict of interest being employed by the pj??? The pj are not people of interest in crimes
Ffs

anyway this is a dud discussion as no one has brought any evidence at all that the translations were wrong, next

That is not the point.  It is the lack of the English version and the conflict of interest by the interpreters/translators that I'm questioning.

[mercury]

That is not the point.  It is the lack of the English version and the conflict of interest by the interpreters/translators that I'm questioning.

You still have to describe the conflict of interest between the interpreters and the police, so far, you have failed to do so, despite a few requests, so what is it????

And how and why should there be n english version

[Robittybob1]

Please do not libel the NZ police.

Provide evidence or desist.

Evidence?  The incident happened in around 1984. Evidence would be long gone but it is definitely etched in my memory.

The thing that made it hard to prove in Court was the fact that I had not asked for a copy of my statement at the time of signing it.  So I wonder if in the MM case whether the witnesses were given copies of their statements made at the time?

[Robittybob1]

You still have to describe the conflict of interest between the interpreters and the police, so far, you have failed to do so, despite a few requests, so what is it????

We were talking about the hypothetical situation (you raised) of the interpreters and translators employed by the PJ or at least the Public Ministry.  Then there is a conflict of interest.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354219#msg354219

[mercury]

We were talking about the hypothetical situation (you raised) of the interpreters and translators employed by the PJ or at least the Public Ministry.  Then there is a conflict of interest.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354219#msg354219

No we were talking about your assertion that translators cant be without a police vested interest,..a pretty one at that but thats what trolls do so no surprise at all robbity keep on trolling, sorry your life is bare, not anyone elses fault chuck

[Robittybob1]

No we were talking about your assertion that translators cant be without a police vested interest,..a pretty one at that but thats what trolls do so no surprise at all robbity keep on trolling, sorry your life is bare, not anyone elses fault chuck

You are wrong again. 

[Robittybob1]

Were the witnesses were given copies of their statements written out at the time?

[Mr Gray]

It is absurd to think there are no errors in the translation on the basis that all translations are likely to contain errors and the PJ do not seem to have any strict control on the quality of the translators. This is why there should have been a signed copy of the statement in English
The fact that some want to defend this flawed system is testament to their bias against the McCanns

[Mr Gray]

No I don't.

I think it was read to him.

Hence read.

Go off to the statement, post the bumph from the bottom, then we can debate the facts.  Or don't, as you are wont.

I have already posted the declaration

[G-Unit]

If the translators and interpreters were employed by the PJ there would be questions about their impartiality.

They were used by the  PJ and paid, like the PJ, by the State. The PJ confirmed that their invoices were correct.

The Metropolitan police in the UK follow exactly the same method. Are their interpreters 'in cahoots' with the police?

You seem to be moving into the realms of fantasy in your attempts to attack the Portuguese Judiciary.

The impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families.

[slartibartfast]

We were talking about the hypothetical situation (you raised) of the interpreters and translators employed by the PJ or at least the Public Ministry.  Then there is a conflict of interest.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7595.msg354219#msg354219

Please desist from this line of question. You are making allegations with no backing.

[Robittybob1]

They were used by the  PJ and paid, like the PJ, by the State. The PJ confirmed that their invoices were correct.

The Metropolitan police in the UK follow exactly the same method. Are their interpreters 'in cahoots' with the police?

You seem to be moving into the realms of fantasy in your attempts to attack the Portuguese Judiciary.

The impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families.

That is a bit harsh ("moving into the realms of fantasy").  I am not trying to go that far but I have worked in an environment where conflict of interest (COI) is taken seriously, so I know what it should deliver and it won't only be "the impartiality question is concerned with the interpreter knowing or having a connection with witnesses or their families".  Even though that would be important as well.
If we could get to see the COI declaration we would see the types of concerns there are.  How could we get one of those?  Even one that is used in the UK would give us a clue.
They would not get paid directly from the PJ investigation. (I'd be surprised if they do.)
The policy is to prevent any claims of "cahoots" from either side.

[Robittybob1]

Please desist from this line of question. You are making allegations with no backing.

I am not making any allegations.   Mercury posed a ridiculous situation and we were working through that purely hypothetical situation that would never occur.