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

[Mr Gray]

The system used was poor by any standards. The mccanns were told to sign confirming they had read and understood the statements when they had not....twice translated non verbatim statemnets WILL contain errors....we do not have anyway of checking for these errors...an absolute pigs ear of an operation

[ShiningInLuz]

The system used was poor by any standards. The mccanns were told to sign confirming they had read and understood the statements when they had not....twice translated non verbatim statemnets WILL contain errors....we do not have anyway of checking for these errors...an absolute pigs ear of an operation

No they weren't.

If you think so, you can't tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite.

On the other hand, if you can tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite, you know that you are spouting nonsense.

And we do have means of checking some of the statements, none of which come close to indicating the PJ made a pig's ear of the translations.

The normal forum approach when you are impugning an individual, or a group of individuals, is to provide evidence supporting your allegation.  To date, on this topic, you have been happy to PJ-bash, without a shred of evidence to support your assertions.

[Mr Gray]

No they weren't.

If you think so, you can't tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite.

On the other hand, if you can tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite, you know that you are spouting nonsense.

And we do have means of checking some of the statements, none of which come close to indicating the PJ made a pig's ear of the translations.

The normal forum approach when you are impugning an individual, or a group of individuals, is to provide evidence supporting your allegation.  To date, on this topic, you have been happy to PJ-bash, without a shred of evidence to support your assertions.

as you have sais you have not read the declaration at the bottom of the statement I think you should stop contradicting me. I have posted the declaration earlier in the thread. the fact that the pj as a whole completely misunderstood the forensic evidence and the dog alerts...is proof they made a pigs ear of the whole thing

[Mr Gray]

No they weren't.

If you think so, you can't tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite.

On the other hand, if you can tell the difference between a past participle and the preterite, you know that you are spouting nonsense.

And we do have means of checking some of the statements, none of which come close to indicating the PJ made a pig's ear of the translations.

The normal forum approach when you are impugning an individual, or a group of individuals, is to provide evidence supporting your allegation.  To date, on this topic, you have been happy to PJ-bash, without a shred of evidence to support your assertions.

from the statement..


after having read the deed she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter.


she didn't read it did she.....



the wording is exactly the same as those given by portuguese speakers so don't try to twist it...it wont wash

[Robittybob1]

If you wish to claim that an equivalent of PACE 1984 exists in Portugal, find it and post it. 

There is no reason to infer commonality of law between England and Portugal other than that those emanating from European Law.  If you think there is any European law requiring an equivalent of PACE, find it and post it.

The incident occurred in Portugal.  The relevant legal system is that of Portugal.  What happens in Canada, South Africa, Greece, Germany etc. has no relevance.

I understand you are in Portugal, can you find the relevant legislation and post it in Portuguese on the forum please.

[ShiningInLuz]

as you have sais you have not read the declaration at the bottom of the statement I think you should stop contradicting me. I have posted the declaration earlier in the thread. the fact that the pj as a whole completely misunderstood the forensic evidence and the dog alerts...is proof they made a pigs ear of the whole thing

Dear oh dear.

When I said I had not read the wording at the bottom of each statement, I had not read the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, which is what we were debating.

But you should have been able to work out that when I was talking about the difference between past participles and the preterite, that I have indeed checked what the bottom of the statement says in Portuguese.

You have repeatedly ignored a request to bring the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, merely parroting something you claim is an accurate translation.  I have no idea where your 'translation' from, so the less said about that the better.

But for the sake of the forum, here is how the relevant sentence starts off, which anyone can check.  Lido o auto ...

O auto when used in a legal sense means legal proceedings or legal documents.  Here the best translation is probably 'the statement'.

Lido is the past participle of ler, which is the verb 'to read'.  The past participle is formed by chopping of the 'er' at the end of ler to leave just 'l', and tacking on ido, to give 'lido'.

English uses context to distinguish read (rhymes with reed) and read (rhymes with red).  Portuguese does not.  Lido means read (rhymes with red).

A past participle does not have any form of pronoun built into it, therefore there is no suggestion that the person signing the document had read the document.

Lido o auto = The document read (then the sentence goes on to say the contents were confirmed and the statement signed).

You have nothing to support the idea that any non-Portuguese speaker was asked to read a document written in Portuguese, while an interpreter sat idly by.  The idea is arrant nonsense.

[Mr Gray]

Dear oh dear.

When I said I had not read the wording at the bottom of each statement, I had not read the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, which is what we were debating.

But you should have been able to work out that when I was talking about the difference between past participles and the preterite, that I have indeed checked what the bottom of the statement says in Portuguese.

You have repeatedly ignored a request to bring the bottom of the statement in Portuguese, merely parroting something you claim is an accurate translation.  I have no idea where your 'translation' from, so the less said about that the better.

But for the sake of the forum, here is how the relevant sentence starts off, which anyone can check.  Lido o auto ...

O auto when used in a legal sense means legal proceedings or legal documents.  Here the best translation is probably 'the statement'.

Lido is the past participle of ler, which is the verb 'to read'.  The past participle is formed by chopping of the 'er' at the end of ler to leave just 'l', and tacking on ido, to give 'lido'.

English uses context to distinguish read (rhymes with reed) and read (rhymes with red).  Portuguese does not.  Lido means read (rhymes with red).

A past participle does not have any form of pronoun built into it, therefore there is no suggestion that the person signing the document had read the document.

Lido o auto = The document read (then the sentence goes on to say the contents were confirmed and the statement signed).

You have nothing to support the idea that any non-Portuguese speaker was asked to read a document written in Portuguese, while an interpreter sat idly by.  The idea is arrant nonsense.

i have already posted this....my translation is from teh pjmccann files....

the declaration at the bottom of the statements for both the mccanns and native portuguese speakers is the same

ie that the signee has read and ratified the statements. The mccanns could not have read the statements...

[Angelo222]

its an absolute disgraceful piece of policing imo...you quoted


A translator uses different skills than a court interpreter. A translator converts a
written document or audiotape recording from the source language (SL) into a written
document in the target language


so where is the source document we should all be able to refer to.....the mcccanns signature is on a portuguese document not an english one

And rightly so too.  If there was to be a trial then it was the Portuguese documents which were the principal ones and not any English translation.

[Mr Gray]

And rightly so too.  If there was to be a trial then it was the Portuguese documents which were the principal ones and not any English translation.

they are inadmissable as evidence against the mccanns as they were not arguidos when taken

[Angelo222]

I haven't checked the bumph on the bottom of a statement, therefore if you wish to quote 'I have read', as opposed to 'read', is on the bottom, go for it.

AFAIK, non-Portuguese speakers had the statement read to them before it was signed, hence no problem with read.  If you think otherwise, kindly provide some evidence.

That is exactly what would have happened, the interpreter would have verbally relayed the Portuguese language statement or interview comments back to the witnesses in English so they knew what they were signing.

[ShiningInLuz]

from the statement..

after having read the deed she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter.

she didn't read it did she.....

the wording is exactly the same as those given by portuguese speakers so don't try to twist it...it wont wash

Which Portuguese speakers? If those were fluent Portuguese speakers then their English is poor quality.  Portuguese has clear ways of saying 'after' and there is not a hint of that.  Portuguese expresses 'having' by the present participle of ter or haver, and neither appears in the sentence.

From memory, much the remainder of the sentence was in the preterite, which is why I raised past participle and preterite.  That would make your translation of the end of the sentence in error, but does anyone give a fig?

The start of the sentence is still "The statement read ..."

The McCanns never complained of this part of the process.

[Mr Gray]

Which Portuguese speakers? If those were fluent Portuguese speakers then their English is poor quality.  Portuguese has clear ways of saying 'after' and there is not a hint of that.  Portuguese expresses 'having' by the present participle of ter or haver, and neither appears in the sentence.

From memory, much the remainder of the sentence was in the preterite, which is why I raised past participle and preterite.  That would make your translation of the end of the sentence in error, but does anyone give a fig?

The start of the sentence is still "The statement read ..."

The McCanns never complained of this part of the process.

You criticise my translation but it isnt my translation....its the translation from the pj mccann files....those who have translated most of the files.

The mccanns signed the same declaration as the portuguese witnesses.......the declaration should have been diferrent as teh mccanns could not read the statement...

[Mr Gray]

Which Portuguese speakers? If those were fluent Portuguese speakers then their English is poor quality.  Portuguese has clear ways of saying 'after' and there is not a hint of that.  Portuguese expresses 'having' by the present participle of ter or haver, and neither appears in the sentence.

From memory, much the remainder of the sentence was in the preterite, which is why I raised past participle and preterite.  That would make your translation of the end of the sentence in error, but does anyone give a fig?

The start of the sentence is still "The statement read ..."

The McCanns never complained of this part of the process.

on the mccann files the translation reads...

reads,ratifies and signs


do you still want to claim that you are right and both these translators are wrong..

[ShiningInLuz]

You criticise my translation but it isnt my translation....its the translation from the pj mccann files....those who have translated most of the files.

The mccanns signed the same declaration as the portuguese witnesses.......the declaration should have been diferrent as teh mccanns could not read the statement...

'Your translation' is 'the translation you have claimed is correct', not 'the translation you personally have made of the original Portuguese' because it is blindingly obvious that either 1) you have not read the original Portuguese, and/or 2) you cannot translate Portuguese into English.

Is there something about a past participle in Portuguese that you still don't understand after my lengthy explanation?

[ShiningInLuz]

on the mccann files the translation reads...

reads,ratifies and signs

do you still want to claim that you are right and both these translators are wrong..

'Lido' is 'read' (rhymes with red) and is a past participle.  I see you are now quoting a completely different translation of the stuff at the bottom.

There is no ways that 'lido' (read) can be translated accurately as reads.  Lido is past tense.  Read (rhymes with reed) is current tense.

Ler, to read, is irregular, and the correct word for (he/she/it) reads is 'lê', which of course looks absolutely nothing like 'lido'.