Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Alice Purjorick]

My point is: how much access did the UK police have, in the initial phase, to be able to form a point of view?

Totally open question.

Going back to your previous post I would read "little access" as diplospeke for "b****r all access".
Were it my case I would have played my cards very close with a bunch of policeman from abroad of whom I knew nothing, who were but civilians in my country and possibly over chatty with the world's press.
My view as the incumbent would be "I am here to do a job not make friends".

[Mr Gray]

That may well be the case but that is the hand which was dealt.
You either play it or fold. Complaining about misdeals and procrastinating will only put off the inevitable day when you have to play the hand you were dealt.

We are discussing... It'd a discussion forum

[Angelo222]

I don't believe the minor translation errors had any relevance one way or another, after all, the translations were merely for the benefit of others and had no real impact on investigators.  What might have got misinterpreted however was the instructions to Metodo 3 in that "Search for Madeleine" somehow became"Hit Amaral".

[Robittybob1]

I don't believe the minor translation errors had any relevance one way or another, after all, the translations were merely for the benefit of others and had no real impact on investigators.  What might have got misinterpreted however was the instructions to Metodo 3 in that "Search for Madeleine" somehow became"Hit Amaral".

All people and organisations would naturally become target for investigation.  Why should they not look at Amaral?

[barrier]

All people and organisations would naturally become target for investigation.  Why should they not look at Amaral?

During an investigation?

[Robittybob1]

During an investigation?

I don't see why not.  He was demoted by that stage so the effect on the investigation must have been non existent IMO.  How could it affect the investigation?

[G-Unit]

In the English language we use translate when referring to the written word, interpret when referring to the spoken word.

I believe the thread is looking at alleged errors by interpreters, although the title suggests they are facts. I've seen no evidence to support that.

[Benice]

Explanations of the difficulties encountered in translating accurately have been  provided by the translators themselves by way of notes in the statements - and have been posted on here more than once..

Evidence of how Kate's diary was mistranslated  - causing the opposite meaning of what she said to be wrongly made public have also been posted,

It's obvious to me when reading some of the statements that the wording chosen by the interpreter, although strictly speaking may not  be incorrect -  is not a word /phrase that the interviewee would use in normal everyday conversation. 

Sometimes there are several words all with slightly different meanings which can be used to explain one word.    IMO an example of that is the word 'monitor' which can mean 'checked' -  but the word 'checked' can also mean 'controlled' - which does not mean 'monitor'.  That one example itself has been the cause of much controversy over C.Mitchell's role in the media.

It is very telling IMO that the McCanns paid £100,000 to have the files professionally translated.

Quote from Kate's book:

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!    A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you've provided it.
End quote

One wrongly translated word can make a huge difference to a statement.  IMO The idea that errors could not have occurred because the interviewees signed statements as being correct  is naive.  IMO it is  proof that folk are human and will and do make mistakes  - especially if their statement has been read out to them at the end of long tiring interrogations, and they have not had the opportunity to sit and read it themselves in their own language when they are refreshed.

All in my opinion, no-one is obliged to agree with me.

[Robittybob1]

In the English language we use translate when referring to the written word, interpret when referring to the spoken word.

I believe the thread is looking at alleged errors by interpreters, although the title suggests they are facts. I've seen no evidence to support that.

I feel this is the 3rd time this issue has been seriously debated in the last year and a half.  I think it was the way the PJ took that statements that allowed the suggestion that translation/interpretation errors could be important.  Unless there was the original language statement present there was no paper trail to refute the suggestion.

[G-Unit]

Explanations of the difficulties encountered in translating accurately have been  provided by the translators themselves by way of notes in the statements - and have been posted on here more than once..

Evidence of how Kate's diary was mistranslated  - causing the opposite meaning of what she said to be wrongly made public have also been posted,

It's obvious to me when reading some of the statements that the wording chosen by the interpreter, although strictly speaking may not  be incorrect -  is not a word /phrase that the interviewee would use in normal everyday conversation. 

Sometimes there are several words all with slightly different meanings which can be used to explain one word.    IMO an example of that is the word 'monitor' which can mean 'checked' -  but the word 'checked' can also mean 'controlled' - which does not mean 'monitor'.  That one example itself has been the cause of much controversy over C.Mitchell's role in the media.

It is very telling IMO that the McCanns paid £100,000 to have the files professionally translated.

Quote from Kate's book:

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!    A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you've provided it.
End quote

One wrongly translated word can make a huge difference to a statement.  IMO The idea that errors could not have occurred because the interviewees signed statements as being correct  is naive.  IMO it is  proof that folk are human and will and do make mistakes  - especially if their statement has been read out to them at the end of long tiring interrogations, and they have not had the opportunity to sit and read it themselves in their own language when they are refreshed.

All in my opinion, no-one is obliged to agree with me.

I think we're discussing interpreting rather than translating. The point of interpreting is to listen to something said in one language and interpret it in another language. A word for word interpretation makes no sense to the listener in many cases. That's why it's called interpreting. The aim is to convey the sense of what is being said.

Criticising how the statements were ratified is all very well, but the fact that they were ratified remains.

[Mr Gray]

I think we're discussing interpreting rather than translating. The point of interpreting is to listen to something said in one language and interpret it in another language. A word for word interpretation makes no sense to the listener in many cases. That's why it's called interpreting. The aim is to convey the sense of what is being said.

Criticising how the statements were ratified is all very well, but the fact that they were ratified remains.

Reads ratifies and signs
How could they be ratified if they we're not read. Therefore they we're, signed but not ratified IMO...6

[G-Unit]

I feel this is the 3rd time this issue has been seriously debated in the last year and a half.  I think it was the way the PJ took that statements that allowed the suggestion that translation/interpretation errors could be important.  Unless there was the original language statement present there was no paper trail to refute the suggestion.

The PJ took the statements in accordance with Portuguese law. They were under no obligation to do it to any other standards. If those giving the statements noticed errors they should have said so; that's the purpose of the reading back.

Blaming the PJ and/or interpreters instead of accepting what the witnesses said seems to me to be a somewhat desperate ploy.

[Mr Gray]

The PJ took the statements in accordance with Portuguese law. They were under no obligation to do it to any other standards. If those giving the statements noticed errors they should have said so; that's the purpose of the reading back.

Blaming the PJ and/or interpreters instead of accepting what the witnesses said seems to me to be a somewhat desperate ploy.

How do we know what was read back was accurate... We don't... It may have been to Portuguese standards but those standards could well result in confusion which is exactly  what's happened imo

[Robittybob1]

The PJ took the statements in accordance with Portuguese law. They were under no obligation to do it to any other standards. If those giving the statements noticed errors they should have said so; that's the purpose of the reading back.

Blaming the PJ and/or interpreters instead of accepting what the witnesses said seems to me to be a somewhat desperate ploy.

Several times we have attempted to define the Portuguese law on this matter.  Your opinion might be that they were taken as per the law but there was definite evidence of the investigation fixing things up so maybe they were not to the letter of the law.  That is something we were never able to fully resolve.

Not all the information has been released to us through the file so I feel we can't be sure.

[Carana]

Going back to your previous post I would read "little access" as diplospeke for "b****r all access".
Were it my case I would have played my cards very close with a bunch of policeman from abroad of whom I knew nothing, who were but civilians in my country and possibly over chatty with the world's press.
My view as the incumbent would be "I am here to do a job not make friends".

LOL

Cutting through diplobabble, I'd agree that they probably really did have little access.

However, if there was nothing to go on, what was Rainbows's cite based on? And this seemingly dated back to 1 June 07.

A general appreciation in the absence of any specific information?